Which would be the moral arguments. The problem with what you want is that it keeps kids from learning how to make choices by weighing options and considering outcomes. It prevents them from learning how other people think. These are valuable skills. Why delay learning them until adulthood?
You will simply stop the lesson at, there were people who supported slavery and there were abolitionists? There were people who had different opinions regarding state’s rights? And when a kid asks why abolitionists were antislavery, what do you say? You don’t know. You don’t care. It doesn’t matter. I’ll tell you on your 18th birthday. Ask your parents (who will wonder why they have to do the teacher’s job).
When a kid asks why the Founders believed in no taxation without representation, what do you say?
I don’t have time to curate a list, but the Oxford History of the United States is a good start. You can make the argument that because it touches on period sentiments as decision driving forces, cultural aspects of history et cetera that it contains morals. I would argue it discusses sentiment as recorded, objectively as it existed in its time, but does not teach or instruct on how to feel or think. It just presents the information, as it was. Which is my point. There is no CRT seed planting bullshit. Or biblical evangelizing. Just discussions of what was.
Not for schools to pitch, outside the context of historical impact of said death. The morality aspect of the question doesn’t belong in public education curriculum.
I think we actually agree on most of what you’re saying, I just think you are dramatically underestimating the amount of value judgments and subjectivity baked into that entire book and way of looking at history.
What makes one aspect of history worth focusing on at the expense of another?
I should have also specified that I think history in the USA should be taught through a secular Western lens, which is a broad notion that is absolutely 100 percent a product of Judeo-Christian values.
You just can’t get away from value judgements if you want to understand the past in a way that’s helpful for one’s future. How can you understand what a law is without a value judgement somewhere along the way?
Nobody’s objective, and the real problem comes from the subjective people who get to decide what is called “objective”.
“That’s a great question. History often makes us consider our present life, and the reflections we have discussed today will likely spur many questions of meaning. I encourage you to speak with your parents or trusted community leaders with your parents acknowledgment and explore your thoughts under their guidance. I am just the teacher hired to disseminate the information of what happened, not a moral luminary holding a universal moral high ground. Hell, I can barely afford my car payment and I haven’t seen my ex-wife in years. What do I know.”
I think I got that one backwards and maybe it was Aristotle who was suspected of killing Alexander. It’s been a long time since I dove down that rabbit hole.
You wouldn’t want someone like me teaching history to 14 year-olds, that’s for sure.
Don’t be. Getting details wrong is part of learning history, too.
Many of the historians who have brought Mongol history to the English language grew up learning that Mongol success came from raw numbers and barbarism, i.e. the Mongol Hordes.
That was wrong. They were actually a lot better at warfare.
Aristotle died a year later. The thing is, the relationship between the two was strained for various reasons and this is why Aristotle having a role in Alexander’s death is something that is out there. Getting back to what we’re talking about, there is nuance and details regarding the issues between the two. Questions about government and empire and how people are treated. Imagine teaching the history of Alexander and leaving these things out. The things that inspire conversation and make the protagonists more human.
If we take the position of leaving out morality and opinions, then we would not teach philosophy. Which would mean not teaching logic. HS kids shouldn’t read Plato’s Republic or The Prince. They probably don’t anyway, but if a teacher included these texts in the curriculum, would there be an issue?
I don’t need you teaching my daughter about the concept of anal rape. You may feel superior in your classroom but in the end anything beyond objectivity is simply your opinion, and frankly it doesn’t factor.
What do you think of an AP “test” American History class where one week a portion of American History is told from a liberal perspective, immediately followed by one week told from a conservative perspective, and then followed by one week of addressing the differences? Then repeat the next 3 weeks with the next portion, etc.
Let’s see how our best and brightest high schoolers digest American History when they fairly see both sides.
Granted their learned biases will slant their interpretations.
Another fool’s errand, especially considering the rapidly-shifting perspectives of American liberals for my lifetime. It is also an extremely limiting perspective, as it excludes history as many other American perspectives would like for it to be taught.
In my opinion something is either supported by facts, or not. The curriculum either aligns with other broadly-held ideas in Western civilization, like the conditions under which we consider killing to be justified, or not. If not, that’s something I consider to be possibly problematic.
They are murky waters indeed, but I also don’t think it is nearly as difficult as people imagine to come up with a history curriculum that’s going to be beneficial to every public school student who learns it without imposing faith-based beliefs and ideologies on the kids.
It isn’t too hard to figure out when that is taking place.
IMO I think this could be an interesting social studies elective, as the dialogue and output would largely revolve around modern viewpoints (and biases) of historical lessons, derived from events. I don’t know that it would actually teach the history of events themselves, or at least not as an objective course curriculum. Ultimately it would recycle back to subjective content selection and approval and highlights the runaway dialogues we see forced in our public education system - This, to me, would be the greatest value of the experiment.
That was my intent. These AP students would have already taken the required High School American History class.
It would be one of the few classes apart from STEM classes that would require critical thinking. A good (okay, very good) teacher would be trying to get every student to suspend their assumptions, and honestly critique one view against the other. Assign the liberal slanted students defend the conservative point of view, and the conservative slanted students defend the liberal point of view.
I was not suggesting that American History be taught in this fashion. I agree with most all here that it should be told as objective as possible
Home schooling is not that hard. Most of their natural intelligence will come from a combination of her parents (you seem like a smart guy) and environment (Do you read to her often? Do you limit/avoid screen time, especially at a young age? Is she being raised in a fairly stable, secure household?), and as long as she learns how to read, write, and do basic math, she won’t go out into the world any worse than anyone else. If she can leave with an above average understanding of history, civics, science, etc. that’s great, but it’s not that hard to give her just as good of an education as the average public school student in the fundamentals that are the building blocks for everything else.
Plus you can add your own stuff in. PE can be going into your garage gym. Science could be planting a tree in your yard and caring for it or going out into the country and finding constellations. Add in your own religious stuff if you swing that way.
Plus, in my town, the local rec center offered classes during the day for homeschoolers, like art, PE, and Spanish & German. I knew homeschooled kids who would go to local public and private schools just for the music and theatre classes.
I also know of families who have started homeschool co-ops, and they meet weekly for certain extra classes, like one of the dads who works at a bank will come for an hour twice a week to teach personal finance, and a mom who studied English in college went through a Shakespeare course with the juniors & seniors in their group one semester.
All good things to check out and see if they’re offered in your area.
I was homeschooled by a mom who was smart but had no professional education experience, and when I did start going to school I was perfectly at or above the level of everyone else. I plan on homeschooling my kid(s), at least during the younger years.
Considering intent I think it could be very interesting. Almost like a debate class built on modern view defense with historical events as the subject matter.