Timothy Egan's rousing double-header

As I've opined before, Timothy Egan is the NYT's finest opinion writer, and he proves it again in "Happy Talk History." His column is a charming denunciation of that idiot legislator in Oklahoma who wants to convert A.P. American history courses into proselytizing hoedowns, which I'm sure you've read about — which is to say, laughed or cried at. The subtext of Egan's piece is, however, the dreariness of high school history as reconstructed from the stale towers of academic officialdom. Writes Egan:

Much of the A.P. history framework is boring, bland, and sounds like it was written by committee, which it was. There’s little narrative, drama, heroics or personality — in other words, the real-life stuff that makes for thrilling history.

Here’s a sample "learning objective" from the current national course and exam description from the College Board: "Analyze the role of economic, political, social and ethnic factions on the formation of regional identities in what would become the United States from the colonial period through the 19th century."

Jesus! Why not ask the teenage test-takers to formulate a unified theory of physics while they're at it? I have a couple graduate degrees in the subject and I'd need a few days just to sort out the question, let alone come up with a coherent, on-the-spot answer. What the College Board knows, or at least hopes, though, is that the poor high schoolers have been put through the mill of rote learning: Woven through their boring, bland text is The Answer (in 500 words or less) to that immensely unruly setup, and all they need do is vomit it back. As Egan observes, "And you wonder why the humanities are in trouble."

I'm delighted to report that my 15-year-old daughter tells me that history is now her favorite subject in school. Her love of the discipline comes not from her readings but from her teacher, who is genuinely excited about history and passes that excitement along to her students. Even though my daughter has informed me of this, I could have guessed it, because I've read some of my daughter's history textbook. No one could get excited about history by reading that dead, uninspired phone book of a narrative. Egads.

Were I a high school history teacher — and I wouldn't be for long; administration's long knives would soon be out — I'd first apologize to my students for requiring their parents to pay for their boring, bland, exorbitantly priced textbooks and then I'd assign selections from Hofstadter, Halberstam, McPherson and Foner. I'd encourage them to think about change, which is the stuff of history, but mostly I'd advise them to simply enjoy great writing from great historical writers. Once they're interested enough in the subject to actually care about it, then they could tackle the College Board's incorrigible questions.

 

Comments

[Peter G]

Think of it as a Darwinian process which I have witnessed across campuses of higher learning everywhere. So you think you love History or English Litt or whatever. Well that will be tested. You will be put through the mill and when we are done it will be seen whether or not anything but the ashes of your passion remain. If nothing but the ashes remain then congratulations, you are ready for academia.

[merl]

Hendrick Van Loon should be required reading starting with "the History of the World.