"Why Does American History Feel Like Ancient History" Topic

… to High School Students?

"Ask a high school student how Donald Trump once again clinched the nomination as the Republican Party's candidate for the presidency. There's a good chance that the answer they give won't be very satisfying. They likely won't be able to tell you how Trump's first presidency built upon the momentum of the Tea Party or was powered by a decades-long coalition between activist groups like the Federalist Society and white Evangelical voters. Most high schoolers won't be able to explain these phenomena for the simple reason that many, if not most, American schools do not teach the history of modern conservatism.

Today's high school seniors were born in the waning years of the last Bush administration, five years after September 11. Since most Americans do not earn college degrees, this spring will be many of those students' last opportunity to learn about the past in a methodical way from a trained teacher. In the fall, many of them will vote in their first election. They deserve to understand the social, political, and activist traditions shaping their country. For high schoolers born after the creation of YouTube, that might require adding lessons that discuss historical events that took place after the birth of the internet…"

Main page

link

Armand

Isn't this the somewhat artificial distinction between history and politics? WwI is still taught in history – but in 1919 it wasn't on the syllabus….but the events of 1850 would have been.

So I taught college and high school. Yes political science is different from history. I taught State and local government, Federal government, world history and American history. I high school the subject areas were more numerous with a narrower scope.

Probably because the students are not interested in either form of history.

Society has shifted the balance on over time from seeking a common sense of identity to seeking one's own identity. This means interest in society's past as something that defines one I has become less to important. There are pros and cons to both ways of identifying but unfortunately they don't mix well either within a society or between societies.

In the UK the role of higher education so far as it relates to those disciplines that might be described as the social sciences is simply to provide employment for academics. Learning skills in technology, construction, science etc remains vital but teaching subjects such as history as a guide to better informed action is pointless. Argument and evidence no longer matter. I have followed threads on a wide variety of topics in history, politics and culture and individuals' views remain unchanged. Our universities and colleges seethe with an intolerance of contrary positions. I'm not sure how we got to this but we aren't getting out of it anytime soon.

most high schools dont really teach any history.

Thanks!

Armand

History is racist!!

Wolfhag

I wouldn't expect high schools to go into detail about the very recent history of a particular political movement. That is college level material for a political science and or American history major.

In my HS class one of the most remarked sections of Government classes was on political campaigns and how they are similar to commercials for consumer products. I got some interesting collages for their projects.
The most angst topic was on discretionary justice. It was a 95%+ minority school.

Some students became college students of mine as well. The most feedback was on State/local taxes versus Federal taxes.

Thanks also…

Armand

Geez. When I was a kid in American public schools, mostly in the Midwest but high school in Texas, our history classes were a hit or miss of traditional "history" alternating with "social studies" that were vague and nebulous. I was in a different school district every year between ages 7 and 15 (my family moved a lot) so was exposed to all sorts of educational theories in vogue at the time. Some semesters I learned stuff and had good teachers; other terms seemed like a waste of time. I really learned history mostly thru my own indefatigable reading of histories, biographies, and historical fiction. Autodidact. There were a few times later in my school days when I was confident I knew more about subjects than my teacher did, or was forced to teach to. ("Alexander the Great was a general. He led an army into Asia. He marched and marched." -- I remember that from a history text we were given in the 10th grade! Absurd. I would win these stupid crossword-type puzzles we were assigned by using Roman provinces as my "guess" words -- Dalmatia, Illyricum, Pannonia, I could always stump the class with stuff like that from my ancient history readings. I regarded all those classes, often taught by athletics coaches moonlighting, as a joke.)

History is racist!! Therefore, we should ignore it?

Dude…!

Armand

While in a graduate history program, I was trained in the Leopold von Ranke method. Therefore, I think it's possible to write relatively objective history. We are not all "One-Dimensional Man" automatrons – no thanks H. Marcuse. :^)

I wouldn't expect high schools to go into detail about the very recent history of a particular political movement. That is college level material for a political science and or American history major.

These students are on the cusp of voting age.

I would agree that a foundation in rhetoric, with specific focus on how to identify and mitigate logical fallacies would be more useful that the specific recent history of current groups. And a good dose of skepticism, as opposed to sheepleness disguised as skepticism, would be good for the curriculum.

I don't think most school officials (or the public in general) would want such alight shone on the claimed bases of their opinions, so I don't hold out much hope.