ABC Nightline
3/11/2010
Summary: An interview with an influential member of the Texas School board that imposed a number of controversial changes to the state's curriculum, including the attempted removal of Thomas Jefferson, a defense of Joseph McCarthy, and the marginalization of minority self-determination.
Intended Audience: Nightline is broadcast nationwide and aimed at the every-day average US citizen.
Key Points: 1) Texas implemented a number of controversial curriculum changes in 2010; 2) Gives a board member the chance to defend himself.
Relevance: First of all, I want to make it very clear that I am not posting this as an attempt to espouse any particular set of beliefs or ideologies. I will not publicly support either side in a forum such as this, and apologize that the embed is from an impartial source (one that I do not remotely support); it was, in fact, the only version able to be embedded. I have linked the original from ABC's website in the header.
I do, however, believe that this specific topic brings to light some of the more raw, dangerous and controversial aspects of education. Topics that should not be avoided at all costs, but that should be mulled over, ruminated upon, discussed and debated. After all, the most basic reason this particular topic is relevant is this: What are schools for? Thereby, what are our goals as educators?
"To me it's just about providing accurate history" is the quote from McLeroy that sums it up the best to me. Whether it is his self-described "Christian world view" or the views of someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, "accurate history" is a more-or-less subjective thing, isn't it? The personal backgrounds that we approach the discipline with color our interpretation of events, and descriptions of events and their causes and influences can be arranged and rearranged to suit whoever is holding the pen.
ReplyDeleteThat said, however, just as we talked about during Wednesday's class, there is a certain body of knowledge, a canon of actors and events and even dates, that do need to form the foundation of a history education if a student is to bring her own interpretation to a description. I think that the actions of the Texas school board are unfair not because they skew the presentation of history in a certain direction, but because they limit or deprive access to other information that has been removed for the short-sighted and selfish aim of furthering their own political views.
A discussion of McCarthy should be neither glorifying nor necessarily disparaging; it should describe the events and discuss how both his proponents and opponents -- including, of course, the hundreds of wrongfully accused people -- engaged with the situation, both then and today. An even more valuable exercise might be to build in students the skills for critical examination of events so that they can begin to understand that there are fewer "facts" in history than there are interpretations of events, and to encourage them not to accept whatever is written in a text but to reflect on it and what its presentation in a certain way might mean about the background of the authors (or of the school board who assembled it).
Of course I recognize that this is mostly pie-in-the-sky stuff and that it's a different situation when you are standing in front of the classroom working with variously bored, engaged, or completely checked out students. In any case, it was fascinating to hear from one of the members of the school board about which we have heard so much lately, and very nice to hear his un-politician-like honesty-- whether I agree with it or not.
Thank you for your well thought out and constructed response. I cannot disagree with any of it.
ReplyDeleteThe third paragraph you wrote was particularly relevant to myself as I work to develop my personal philosophy of education.
What exactly is the study of history, and how exactly should I go about teaching it?
I especially like Bruner for the way that he talks about being what you learn. In order to have a fuller and deeper understanding of a history, the student should approach it as a historian and not someone who is merely studying history. To approach history in the way that you wrote about in your third paragraph would be to approach it in precisely such way.