Are History Textbooks Worth Using Anymore? Maybe Not, Some Teachers Say

Among modern training critics, the textbook is a basic and perennial foil—maybe as a result of its very development is basically a compromise between consultants and politicians, teams with typically competing agendas. This is particularly true of historical past texts, which try and distill complicated and contrasting occasions into easy, linear narratives, typically on the expense of nuance and unsightly truths. Yet regardless of these limitations, textbooks are nonetheless the preferred technique to train and be taught historical past.

In her 2003 guide “The Language Police,” training historian Diane Ravitch contends that “every textbook has a point of view, despite a facade of neutrality.” Beyond names and dates, she notes, “there is seldom, if ever, a single interpretation of events on which all reputable historians agree.” As one author within the Atlantic quipped, “history is anything but agreeable.”

Textbooks are written by teachers and historians, after all. But they cross by means of innumerable arms earlier than they ever attain a classroom. And states play an outsized position within the adoption course of. Textbooks are formed by state requirements, authorised by state legislatures and reviewed by panels of educators and lay individuals appointed by—you guessed it—state departments of training, who can request important revisions from publishers. A New York Times analysis earlier this 12 months detailed how probably the most influential states, Texas and California, produce markedly completely different variations of the identical texts from publishers similar to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Pearson and McGraw-Hill “shaded by partisan politics.”

The California model of a well-liked McGraw-Hill textbook, for instance, contains language on redlining and housing discrimination towards African Americans after the Second World War; but owing to completely different state requirements, the Texas model doesn’t. Depending on what state they’re bought in, textbooks with the identical titles both mood or amplify topics like Reconstruction, LGBTQ rights and gun management in stark methods when put next facet by facet. In studying the Times’ evaluation, it might appear that not solely does each textbook have a standpoint, however each version as effectively.

“The truth of the matter is education is political,” says Tinisha Shaw, a social-emotional specialist and former historical past instructor for Guilford County Public Schools in North Carolina, throughout a recent webinar on textbook requirements, organized by Social Studies Network, a Facebook group for educators. “Especially in my state, my general assembly—our legislative body—is involved deeply in how our standards are written. So these are politicians, not teachers. And therefore my curriculum is political. And so, I would guarantee, is yours.”

Tellingly, though Shaw has helped write requirements on the state degree—the identical ones that affect textbook adoption—she infrequently used them in her personal classroom, due partly to what she sees as flaws in how textbooks are written and tailored, in addition to their tendency to overly script curriculum.

“I’m more of the thought of getting rid of the textbooks,” she says. Instead, she suggests that every instructor create curated lists of supplies they’ve vetted—“primary sources and secondary sources that hit particular themes that we discuss.” It’s for positive a unique strategy to instructing historical past, however one which’s gaining foreign money with educators who need their college students to discover a better number of viewpoints.

Of course, historical past texts throughout the board have modified considerably over the previous half century, stripping out narratives of European and American exceptionalism together with myths minimizing the impacts and situations of slavery. And publishers have made not less than some effort so as to add extra multicultural and various views. Still, they endure from terminal weaknesses that make them just about unusable to educators like Liz Ramos, who teaches world historical past and AP Government in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.

Among Ramos’ complaints: Too typically the story of girls and other people of colour shouldn’t be woven into the central narrative of the textbook, however is relegated to sidebars and particular sections. “They are intentionally putting them on the margin—they’re still marginalized,” she says throughout the identical webinar. “It’s not, ‘Oh, this also was going on.’ They are part of the whole story.”

But there could also be an excellent greater problem with historical past textbooks, one which goes far past the fabric condensed inside their pages. During a recent discussion with the worldwide training activist Jamira Burley, Ramos heard her personal views summarized succinctly: We want to arrange college students for an unsure and protean future—the so-called fourth industrial revolution. They want robust critical-thinking abilities, and simply instructing to the textbook shouldn’t be sufficient. “I’ve been like, ‘Hallelujah, I’ve been saying that forever,’” Ramos says. “Just teaching out of a textbook, I think, robs the students not only of critical-thinking skills, but also of the richness of history, and the other voices that are there, which is why I hate the darn textbook and don’t use it.”

There are loads of different causes to eschew textbooks. Angela Lee, a highschool historical past instructor in Massachusetts who additionally participated within the latest webinar, says educators in smaller states similar to hers can’t make the identical requests of publishers that bigger states can, and clearly do. Ultimately, it signifies that with out the political heft of a Texas or California, even the best-designed curriculum can’t be encapsulated by a single weighty tome. “A lot of times we get the textbook and have to do a lot of supplementary and outside work on our own to reflect the curriculum as we want it,” says Lee, including that she’s spent years curating tales of colourful characters typically sidelined from textbooks, such because the Peruvian revolutionary Micaela Bastidas and Qiu Jin, an early 20th-century republican martyr who is taken into account a nationwide hero in China.

Lee’s total level is just like that of Ramos and Shaw: Despite the truth that historical past isn’t comprised of anyone supply, textbooks can solely train college students how one can digest a slim synthesis of historical past written from a single perspective, which can be as untenable as it’s undesirable. What college students actually need, these lecturers say, is to encourage college students to work with major sources themselves. That approach they’re doing the work of historians—following an strategy often called historiography—contrasting varied factors of view and coming to their very own conclusions. “You’re not trying to teach students what they should think,” clarifies Shaw. “But you need to teach them how to think.”

Historiography is difficult, however undoubtedly simpler within the web age, which has made major sources extra accessible than ever. Shaw has college students take into account expansive questions with no clear-cut reply—e.g., “Is democracy the best form of government?”—after which sift by means of paperwork on web sites like Teaching American History, the Library of Congress and the Toolbox Library of the National Humanities Center to make their instances. She additionally leans on the collections and work of Facing History and Ourselves, a social-justice and anti-prejudice nonprofit that provides curriculum {and professional} improvement alternatives.

Despite the abundance of on-line sources, textbooks of each the print and digital varieties stay stubbornly influential. Nearly a decade in the past, just a third of all historical past lecturers had acquired a level within the topic or have been licensed to show it—the bottom degree throughout all of the humanities. “Most history teachers don’t do history, and don’t know how to do history,” Jim Loewen, the historian and creator of “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” as soon as advised the Atlantic. In different phrases, if you happen to’ve solely discovered historical past from a textbook, it’s far simpler to show from one.

To really do historical past, although, college students can’t cease at major sources, says Shaw. Nor can they cease at evaluation and even important considering. After all, historical past, very like historical past training, is political, she reiterates. It can’t, and shouldn’t, be separated from lively, engaged citizenship—whether or not which means college students protesting, changing into activists for points they care about or making an attempt to alter historical past themselves.

Shaw typically thinks about what she calls the 4 important questions lecturers ought to consistently ask themselves: What type of residents are we making an attempt to develop? What type of society do we wish? What does a perfect faculty appear to be in our minds? And what’s the function of education? “If we are looking at those questions and reflecting on them, then it should come up in how we teach our classes, the resources that we use and the standards that we build.”

Those are questions no textbook might ever have the solutions to. And that’s completely the purpose.

“I always say this,” she provides. “Nobody’s going to come and save us. So we’ve got to save ourselves.”

Leave a Comment

Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00