874 Can you teach what you don't know?

Joanne Jacobs always has interesting items about our educational system, from elementary school to grad school. Recent items include, should experienced teachers be allowed to opt out of the tough schools, and a tip to an article about applicants for Master's in teaching of history degrees who not only don't have history undergrad degrees, they haven't taken any history courses at all!

Professor Stan Wineburg of Stanford writes: "But how can you teach what you don't know? Would someone who wanted to teach calculus dare to submit a transcript with no math courses? Would a prospective chemistry teacher come to us with a record devoid of science? Yet with history, the theory goes, all you need is a big heart and a thick book.

The state of California encourages this state of affairs. Although it requires teachers to earn a rigorous teaching credential before they may teach math, English, biology or chemistry in the public school system, there is no such credential for history. Instead, the state hands out a loosey-goosey "social science" credential."

I loved history, but it hasn't had much respect for years. I don't recall a boring history class (well, OK, there was that one professor at U of I who was so excrutiatingly dull a grad student stood up in class an yelled at him and stormed out). I had enough credit hours in college for a history minor (but not the right classes), and wouldn't think of trying to go into a classroom and teach it. My major was such a struggle and I was so over my head, that the history classes were pure joy (they were also in English).

In elementary school we started history as an actual discipline in fifth grade, beginning with pre-history moving on to the Greeks and Romans. Before that, any exposure to history was included in reading stories and class projects. In sixth grade we got western European and British, and I think by seventh (changed schools, so I'm not sure of the sequence) we began to focus on American history, and by eighth grade, Illinois history. I think high school history classes took a similar route--Greece, Rome, Europe, England, United States, Illinois. That probably wouldn't be politically correct today, but in our day-to-day life living as responsible American citizens and taxpayers, it wouldn't hurt to know a few of the events who brought us to 2005. My own children, who attended high school in the 1980s, hadn't memorized any of the "facts," like dates, or even centuries, or the major players. They weren't sure where to place the VietNam War in the 20th century of back-to-back major wars and many smaller wars.

Wineburg concludes, correctly, in my opinion: "Lack of knowledge encourages another bad habit among history teachers: a tendency to disparage "facts," an eagerness to unshackle students from the "dominant discourse" — and to teach them, instead, what the teacher views as "the Truth." What's scary is the certainty with which this "Truth" is often held. Rather than debating why the United States entered Vietnam or signed the North American Free Trade Agreement or brokered a Camp David accord, all roads lead to the same point: our government's desire to oppress the less powerful. It is a version of history that conjures up a North Korean reeducation camp rather than a democratic classroom."