5 Tips for Teaching Students How to Think About US History

Featured

Any good teacher focuses on teaching students how to think.  But how do you do that?  Even more specifically, how do you do this with American history?  US history is typically taught to sophomores, although in many schools juniors or even seniors have access to US history classes and if you’ve never taught US history before, the process can be very intimidating.  In many cases, your class is the only time a student will study US history.  To allay this fear, I’ve detailed five principles that have helped me make US history more accessible.  Remember that you will not be able to teach all of US history with sufficient depth.  However, if you teach students how to appreciate US history, they will have the tools to delve into complex topics on their own as informed and thoughtful citizens.

1) Start by defining history and address presentisim.

Many students assume history is just names and dates that require memorization, and that’s part of history, but not the whole thing.  I start off by having students answer the question “what is history?” War? Invention of the television?  Brushing one’s teeth?.  After they’ve thought about it, I provide a specific definition: “history is the process of analyzing and interpreting important political, social, and economic events in our past.”  The key point is that history is a process and that important varies from person to person.  Students don’t accumulate historical knowledge; they become better at the process of history.

Once you’ve defined history, discuss the dangers of presentisim (applying today’s standards to historical time periods).  This keeps students focused on analyzing the period in more detail as well as removing some of the judgmental nature of our current society.  Today we can look back and say that slavery is horrible, however in the context of the 1860s, this issue was much more complicated.  Give the students the chance to wrestle the details without feeling like politically incorrect.

2) Give them the baseline.

Students need the traditional, patriotic version of American history.  They need to know the chronology of events and traditional key events in American history.  They need the basics: the Revolution, Articles of Confederation, Writing of the Constitution.  Washington the hero, Jefferson the visionary, and Lincoln the savior of the union.  Students want to feel pride in the United States and it is ok to teach them the feel good story…initially.  Fresh out of graduate school, I was very liberal, and felt that students would see the injustices I felt were evident in American history.  I glossed over the traditional story and moved directly to the oppressed and disenfranchised elements of American history:  big mistake.  They had no common baseline for analysis. Assume they know virtually nothing about American history.  Anything you want them to assess, you must assign and walk them through.

3) Hit them with the opposition.

Once students have the learned the flag-waving, nationalistic view of American history, present opposing viewpoints.  “Yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but he also owned slaves.  How does this impact your view of Jefferson?”  “Yes John D. Rockefeller built an incredible business empire, but he did so by abusing workers and using his influence to destroy other competitors.  How does this impact Rockefellers place in American history?”  One of the keys to teaching history is to challenge the conventional story.  Be relentless in this process.  Make sure to teach that there are more than two viewpoints on an issue.  One of the fallacies in our society today is that there are two equally valid and opposing positions on every issue.  This is not the case.  Most issues are nuanced and complex.  Start simple and then add the complexity.

4)  Play devil’s advocate.

Always disagree with a student.  Push their line of reasoning.  Ask probing questions.  If those fail, a simple “I don’t buy it, give me a better explanation” pushes their thinking.  You must be the master of all arguments.  When you push a student to a point where they say “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure,” you know you’re on the right track.

Also, be careful about disclosing your personal beliefs.  While some teachers disclose their personal opinion, in my experience it only creates problems.  Parents tend to dislike, administrators are wary of, and kids get confused by disclosure.  After you’ve taught for several years and the community is familiar with your practice, taking a personal stance is less detrimental.  You’ve got to build the trust with the community that you are not some radical communist or reactionary conservative before you can offer up your own thoughts. The thing I was most happy about this school year is that my liberal students thought I was conservative and my conservative students thought I was liberal.

5) Teach the political spectrum

Students tend to want to know how to label themselves politically.  Helping them in this process is both rewarding and important for depth of understanding in US History.  While Democrats and Republicans are our modern parties, they don’t really teach students anything as they are just labels for political philosophies.  A good suggestion is to use two different spectrum: economic and social.  Each spectrum has identical poles: total government control and no government control.  When you set these on an X and Y plane, students can place themselves in relation to their classmates.  Once students understand that principles and philosophical values underlay party labels US history becomes much more accessible.

An alternative (or complementary method) is teaching the difference between liberals and conservatives.  I use five different parties (based on history in the French Revolution): radicals, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and reactionaries.  The more toward the radical end a student is, the faster they want to change society.  The more toward the reactionary end, the more a student wants to preserve societal institutions.

You might enjoy this article: 7 Management Tips for New Teachers

Wisconsin Recall: Walker Safe, Obama Still Going to Win in November

Featured

The results of the 2012 Wisconsin Governor recall are in, Scott Walker has defended his governorship, and Mayor Tom Barrett has conceded. What does this mean for the general election? Not much. The issue is very basic: Scott Walker, champion of business or destroyer of unions, according to voters didn’t do anything officially wrong.

Buried at the bottom page of The New York Times’ exit polling data is the crucial question: “Do you think recall elections are appropriate?” The possible responses are “For any reason,” “Never,” and “Only for Official Misconduct.” Walker was drilled by those who believed that recalls are appropriate for any reason 90-9 percent. He received overwhelming support by those who felt recalls were never appropriate, 94-5 percent. In the most indicative category, which made up 60 percent of Wisconsin voters, Walker won 68-31 percent.

This number is so distinctive because most of the other breakdowns see both even distribution and minor shifts in behavior. Mr. Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points in 2008. The above category is the only metric that explains Mr. Walker’s convincing electoral defense. Looking at past election results, two distinct trends emerge. First, the Wisconsin governorship has trended more distinctly Republican over the past four elections. Second, during that same time period, voters are trending more and more support for Democratic presidential candidates. The pundits do not address this contrary development. They should, as it debunks many theories that a loss for Mr. Barrett portents electoral doom for Barack Obama.

The numbers are clear. In 2002, Democrat Jim Doyle defeated Governor Scott McCallum 45 percent to 41 percent. Mr. Doyle won again in 2006, 53-45 over Republican Congressman Mark Green. Governor Doyle did not seek a third term, allowing Republican Scott Walker to defeat Mayor of Milwaukie, Democrat Tom Barrett, 52-47. We see a trend toward Republican candidates after the 2006 election. This could mean Wisconsin voters identify with the party platform, or are were just plain sick of the Democratic incumbent.

Were these numbers predictors of the presidential election, Wisconsin would have voted for John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election, but they did not. Wisconsin has not given its electoral votes to a Republican Presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan (PBS Electoral Map)  in 1984. In 2008, Candidate Obama won Wisconsin 56-42 percent. Bill Clinton beat Republican challengers twice in the state, although by a much smaller margin. Al Gore defeated George W. Bush by 0.2 percent in 2000. John Kerry won defeated President Bush by 0.4 percent. These numbers are clear. At the same time Republicans were winning state wide offices in Wisconsin, the Democrats were winning electoral votes.

Several news organizations are indicating that this race is a barometer for the 2012 presidential election. If that is the case, take a look at the margins. In 2010, Walker won 52-47. In the recall, he won, 53-46. If we see at two percent net change in Republican’s favor, President Obama still has an excellent chance to win the reelection. While this win is big for the Republicans, it’s a win on defense. The political landscape remains virtually unchanged in terms of voting behavior. The recall was an election which hinged on process. The Presidential campaign will be an election decided on partly by issues, but mostly by politics.

You might be interested in:
American Idiot: Independent Voters in 2012
 Can Romney Win the Electoral College?

 

NYC Soda Ban: Good for New York? HBO Addresses Obesity Problem

Featured

I posted a comment earlier today on a Huffington Post article in response to the New York City beverage law.  My comments were an observation about students drinking too much soda in class, but it started a string of responses from readers.  This made me realize that the public needs more information about this issue.  My mom, a registered nurse, suggested some videos from HBO films that address the obesity crisis in America.  I’ve included the links below.  The films are quite lengthy, but worth your time.  The New York law might be government overreach, but its only because parents and society at large have failed to take action.

Continue reading

My History Crush: Robert A. Caro

Featured

As readers of this blog can probably tell, I have a historian’s affection for Robert Caro. He’s important not only because of the depth of his work, but because of the timely relevance of his studies in power. For those unfamiliar with Caro’s work, he is most famous for his biography of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Released on May 1st, The Passage of Power, is the fourth volume in his The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Caro’s work is known for detailed research, lengthy texts, and unsurpassed storytelling. Caro’s work is important for both the historian and the general public because he takes on the nature of power. He explores the nuance of obtaining, exercise, and impact of power on both individuals and society.

Continue reading

Really Fox News? Spying on farmers? Daily Show Clip

Whenever I need a good a good laugh, FOX News never disappointing.  John Stewart and The Daily Show address FOX News’ claim that President Obama is spying on mid-Western farmers with aerial drones.

Election 2012: The Idiot Independent

As an economics teacher, my students understand basic relationships between taxing and spending.  If you want government services, you have to pay for it through taxes.  I would say in class: “this is not rocket surgery.”  Unfortunately they are not old enough to vote.  Even worse, there are plenty of people who have the franchise who definitely don’t get this: independent voters.

The 2012 Election will be decided by independents.  “Issues voters” or people who vote the candidates, not the party line, they have been granted legitimacy by the news media as a force in American politics.  The problem: on economic issues, independent voters are illogical idiots.  This is not a personal attack, as here at Nomadic Teacher, we eschew such base and lowbrow mudslinging.  This conclusion is backed up by polling data on mutually exclusive positions.  The fate of our election in 2012 rests in the hand of the independent voter, a voter who, on issues of economics does not understand the connection between taxation and spending.

Continue reading

Election 2012: CNN Electoral Map Update

CNN has come out with its version of the electoral landscape for the 2012 Election. The short version is that CNN has President Obama leading Mitt Romney 247-206.  Key battleground states according to CNN are Florida, Ohio and Virginia.  With the target at 270 electoral votes, the CNN map gives President Obama an initial advantage over Gov. Romney, but CNN’s John King indicates that the map looks much more similar to the 2000 election of Bush v. Gore.  If President Obama wins either Florida or Ohio, he will win the presidency.  However, Mr. King indicates that several other scenarios are possible as the Republicans and Democrats attempt to put different states in play, such as Arizona or Wisconsin.

You might be interested in:
Can Romney Win? Part One: The Electoral College
Can Romney Win? Part Two: “Old, Angry, and Rich.”

7 Tips for Success in a Teaching Job Interview

You’ve received the phone call from the principal.  You’ve been called in for your first teaching job interview.  This is excellent news.  You should celebrate, give a little fist pump.  After you’re done celebrating, it’s time to prepare.  What do you say to get this teaching position?  Teaching job interviews are high stakes conversations, and if you’re lucky enough to land one, you have to have a game plan.  Below are seven tips for success that will most likely make you a more appealing candidate during your interview.

Continue reading

Can Romney Win? Part Two: ‘Old, Angry, and Rich’

Americans are angry. They are frustrated with the economy, health care (on both sides of the aisle), the decline of what both sides see as American values, and government in general. In 1992, Bill Clinton won with a simple phrase: “It’s the economy stupid.” But he could do it because he was charismatic. Mr. Romney spends too much time personifying himself as a swarthy, angry populist. He’s not. This only makes him appear as a contemptuous firebrand. Does he think the majority of American’s are really going to buy his William Jennings Bryan act? Firebrands don’t win elections.  The former Governor is an erudite, urbane, patrician and a member of an American political dynasty.  Instead of classically handsome and dignified he comes off as an old, angry (and rich) white man. Only when he plays to his strengths will he succeed as a candidate. The voters who are unhappy with President Obama are waiting for a leader. Mitt Romney does not project that type of image. Mr. Romney will define himself as a leader, and possibly win the election, only if he is able to establish policies that break from the hard-line Republicans.

Continue reading

Can Romney Win? Part One: The Electoral College


(photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore)

Nomadicteacher - Find me on Bloggers.com

The short answer is yes. Although the Republican base is less than excited about Mr. Romney as a candidate, the Party’s enthusiasm to see the defeat of President Obama may be enough to carry the GOP to victory. Mr. Romney could very possibly win the Presidency. However, he has several obstacles ahead of him in the coming months, the primary obstacle being the state of the Electoral College.

Continue reading