Can History Stand Alone? Drawbacks and Blind Spots of a “Disciplinary” Curriculum

Abstract

Background/Context: Over the past quarter-century, many historians, politicians, and edu- cators have argued for an increase in the amount of history taught in schools, for a clear separation of history and social studies, and for an emphasis on disciplinary structures and norms as the proper focus for the subject. Unfortunately, discussions of history education too often rest on the problematic belief that the academic discipline can provide direction for the nature of the subject in general education. Description of Prior Research: Throughout much of the 20th century, U.S. history educa- tors made common cause with other social educators to promote principled and critical understandings of society. Both groups stood in opposition to calls for more nationalist views of history education. In the mid-1980s, however, this situation began to change, as a coali- tion of historians, educational researchers, and political pressure groups promoted history as a subject distinct from and independent of the larger realm of the social studies. This new coalition has been unable to avoid conflicts over the selection of content, however, and approaches favored by nationalists often clash with the more critical and inclusive perspec- tives of historians. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: In this article, we trace the relation- ship between historians and other social educators during the 20th century and explore how the forces favoring a realignment of history and social studies coalesced in the mid-1980s. We argue that this coalition has led to an unproductive emphasis on history as a “separate subject” and a resulting lack of attention to the goals of history in general education. Teachers College Record Volume 112, Number 9, September 2010, pp. 2471–2495 Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University 0161-4681 2472 Teachers College Record Research Design: This analytic essay draws on curriculum theory, historical sources, and contemporary cognitive research to outline the changing relationships between historians and other social educators and to examine the limitations of a purportedly disciplinary curriculum. Conclusions/Recommendations: The academic discipline of history cannot, by itself, pro- vide guidance for content selection because educators face restrictions of time and coverage that are not relevant in the context of academic historical research. In addition, educators must concern themselves with developing students’ conceptual understanding, and this nec- essarily requires drawing on other social science disciplines. If students are to develop the insights that historians have most often promoted for the subject, historians must return to their place within the conversation of social studies education. The study of history occupies a conflicted place in the school curriculum, not only in the United States but internationally. On the one hand, in many countries it is among the most well-established subjects, and few students could hope to graduate without studying history multiple times during both primary and secondary education. On the other hand, the content of school history is an attractive target for politicians, pundits, and pressure groups, who repeatedly argue for curricular revisions that may bolster support for contemporary political projects. Such appeals come from a variety of political positions, as calls are made for more national history or more global history, higher academic standards or enhanced contemporary relevance, greater attention to multiculturalism or less. Regardless of the ideology behind these demands, their advocates share a belief that school history should respond to forces outside the academy. Understandably, many history educators recoil at such a belief, and they often argue that the study of history should stand alone, uncor- rupted either by social and political concerns or by forced connections with other subjects. Appealing as this stance may be, the assertion of a privileged and inde- pendent status for history is ultimately self-defeating, for it leaves history and social studies educators without a clear basis for organizing the cur- riculum or communicating its importance to the public. Educational issues must always be decided on the basis of criteria that originate, at least in part, outside individual academic disciplines; this is necessary both to justify the inclusion of particular content in the curriculum and to determine how that content will be represented to young learners. Ironically, historians have long recognized the necessity of such a broad view, and the belief that history education should remain aloof from soci- etal concerns and separate from other school subjects is a relatively recent phenomenon.