Is There a Case against Teaching History Chronologically?

[Grammar Stage Parent]

I am very familiar with the arguments against phonics and in favour of "whole-language/look-say", and have an idea about where the "New Math" and "Fuzzy Math" are coming from. But I have never been able to figure out why history is not taught chronologically in schools anymore.

 

Is this deficiency the result of an anti-chronology movement in education, or is it simply from a lack of organization on the part of teachers?

 

 

________________________________________________________

Daughter: 8; Singapore Primary Mathematics 2B; Story of the World Level 1; Writing Strands 2; Spelling Workout Level C; Science experiment books recommended in WTM

 

Son: 5: Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons; Singapore Earlybird Kindergarten Mathematics 2B

[Aggie]

From when I was in college 100years ago....

 

"Children are naturally ego-centric. The world revolves around them. So start with them and expand their knowledge base outward."

 

Basically, teach what they are familiar with first: self, home, school, community, state, country, world.

 

Then cram world history into one year in high school. :confused:

 

It makes no sense, really, but even some hs materials I've seen don't teach history chronologically.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Well, in the strictest sense, almost no curriculum is taught purely chronologically. There is always some narrowing of focus around a particular issue or event, then putting it into context with other things. For example, if you were studying the 1930s it would make some sense to concentrate for a bit on the American depression and the New Deal; on the world wide depression; on the rise of fascism in Germany, Spain and Italy; and on Stalin's terrors. Even if you were studying WWII, you might first study the war in Europe then look back at the same period in the Pacific. The air war, land war, naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, the homefront and the holocaust might all warrant a topical treatment within this study period.

 

There are some good arguements made about studying topically. For example Greek civilization or Egyptian from the dawn of history to the fall of that particular civilization. But even within this topical study, you move in a chronological manner.

 

I read an interesting essay recently that looked at slavery across cultures and time. The author made some points about things that are often lost if you only look at slavery and abolition in the west between colonial time and the Civil War.

 

I think that the two approaches work well hand in hand. What I don't think works is to teach the same thing over and over (example, years of US history) or to expect that students will be able to form connections and conclusions based on emotion rather than actual background knowledge.

[Reya]

But I have never been able to figure out why history is not taught chronologically in schools anymore.

 

 

Where is this true? Within every actual history course that I've ever had or ever heard of, history is taught largely chronologically.

 

I find SWB's somewhat extreme adherence to strict chronology somewhat of a negative in SOTW, since it breaks the narrative of single nations into too many pieces, but even she "cheated" some with the Minoans in book 1.

[bettyandbob]

Where is this true? Within every actual history course that I've ever had or ever heard of, history is taught largely chronologically.

 

I find SWB's somewhat extreme adherence to strict chronology somewhat of a negative in SOTW, since it breaks the narrative of single nations into too many pieces, but even she "cheated" some with the Minoans in book 1.

 

You just said it--"within every actual history course". The thing that is emphasized by The Well Trained Mind and Story of the World is the overall timeline of world history. This timeline is not something I had in school. I think knowing the place of events in history is essential to understanding why things are the way they are today and why in current events some countries respond the way they do.

 

In order to follow the timeline you have to break up the narrative a bit. You have to recognize that something is happening at the same time somewhere else. You have to recognize that the events happening somewhere else may be affecting events happening in the civilizations you started reading about first.

 

The history I was taught was bits and pieces and mostly American. I don't think I had any world history until high school and my American History was not taught in order until 5 th or 6th grade. I think this is why I hated history. It was bits of dates and names here and there and nothing connected.

[Rhonda in TX]

Where is this true? Within every actual history course that I've ever had or ever heard of, history is taught largely chronologically.

 

I find SWB's somewhat extreme adherence to strict chronology somewhat of a negative in SOTW, since it breaks the narrative of single nations into too many pieces, but even she "cheated" some with the Minoans in book 1.

 

A friend of mine likes the fact that we teach history chronologically as opposed to how her kids are learning it - a unit on different parts of history here and there. Another friend pulled her kids out to homeschool this year (9th and 5th) and was very frustrated with how little history her kids had learned. My kids were in school until 2nd and 3rd grade and all they ever got was American and Texas history.

 

Now, in high school, I think it's definitely taught chronologically (world and American history, anyway), but before that, no.

[cathmom]

History in school as I remember it consisted of "Well, we'll do some study of ancient Greece and Rome, because that's the basis of our country, and then, well, we'll skip the fall of Rome, because that doesn't bode well, and then nothing much happens until Columbus discovers America, and then we will cover everything that happened on the North American continent until the end of WW2, because it's the end of the school year and we don't have time for anything more, and that ends on a good note because we won that war. Oh, and nothing important ever happened in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or Australia, so don't worry about that."

[Soph the vet]

History in school as I remember it consisted of "Well, we'll do some study of ancient Greece and Rome, because that's the basis of our country, and then, well, we'll skip the fall of Rome, because that doesn't bode well, and then nothing much happens until Columbus discovers America, and then we will cover everything that happened on the North American continent until the end of WW2, because it's the end of the school year and we don't have time for anything more, and that ends on a good note because we won that war. Oh, and nothing important ever happened in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or Australia, so don't worry about that."

This is how I remember it as well. Until high school, but I went to a classical high school (public school but somebody had their head on straight when choosing curriculum). Personally, I think the lack of chronological world history is part of the effort to dumb down students. It makes it very hard for them to put all of those history pieces together in order to actually learn anything of real value from history as a whole.

(Donning my tinfoil hat):lol:

[Janie]

Check out this article.

 

I still favor TWTM's approach.

[Susan in KY]

My kids were in school until 2nd and 3rd grade and all they ever got was American and Texas history.

 

Now, I can see this in the lower grades. It can even be beneficial, I think. Using the chronological plan, you get children who know a great deal about ancient history, but are not able to converse about local and national things because they haven't studied it yet....

 

I appreciate the way My Father's World (MFW) approaches it: a Biblical foundation in 1st, US historical overview in 2nd, world geography in 3rd, and then the typical chronological history rotation beginning in 4th. By that time, the kids know the location of most countries in the world and have somewhere to hang the info for ancient history onward. They also have a decent knowledge of US history and geography and aren't totally clueless when a friend talks about visiting this or that place on vacation.

 

It's the best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned. I am glad I stumbled onto it.

 

Susan

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

The only downside to teaching chronologically I have found is that in second grade my daughter knew very little about Abraham Lincoln when quizzed by a family friend. :-P

 

Until we made it through the history cycle once, my kid's knowledge of people and events in American History was considered "lacking" by those who made it their business to be concerned.

 

My experience of history in elementary and middle school was sorely lacking anything but information on Columbus, Washington, and Lincoln. I had two years of American History in High School and no World History, because we moved and the sequence of courses was different for each school.

 

I find that my children have a much better grasp of history than I do, World and American, because of our practice of following history through time periods.

[Heather in Neverland]

From when I was in college 100years ago....

 

"Children are naturally ego-centric. The world revolves around them. So start with them and expand their knowledge base outward."

 

Basically, teach what they are familiar with first: self, home, school, community, state, country, world.

 

Then cram world history into one year in high school. :confused:

 

It makes no sense, really, but even some hs materials I've seen don't teach history chronologically.

 

This is EXACTLY how it is taught in the elementary schools here. Like ego-centrism is a GOOD thing? Something we want to encourage? Sheesh. My ds learns chronological history because it is a story of God's plan for mankind and I want him to see where he fits into the story. He is not the star of the story (contrary to what our culture wants kids to believe) but he does play an important role. And since we wouldn't tell a story out of order, I don't teach history out of order.

[unsinkable]

Well, in the strictest sense, almost no curriculum is taught purely chronologically. There is always some narrowing of focus around a particular issue or event, then putting it into context with other things. For example, if you were studying the 1930s it would make some sense to concentrate for a bit on the American depression and the New Deal; on the world wide depression; on the rise of fascism in Germany, Spain and Italy; and on Stalin's terrors. Even if you were studying WWII, you might first study the war in Europe then look back at the same period in the Pacific. The air war, land war, naval battles, unrestricted submarine warfare, the homefront and the holocaust might all warrant a topical treatment within this study period.

 

There are some good arguements made about studying topically. For example Greek civilization or Egyptian from the dawn of history to the fall of that particular civilization. But even within this topical study, you move in a chronological manner.

 

I read an interesting essay recently that looked at slavery across cultures and time. The author made some points about things that are often lost if you only look at slavery and abolition in the west between colonial time and the Civil War.

 

I think that the two approaches work well hand in hand. What I don't think works is to teach the same thing over and over (example, years of US history) or to expect that students will be able to form connections and conclusions based on emotion rather than actual background knowledge.

 

Is this essay online? Do you have a link?

 

TIA

[TXMomof4]

History in school as I remember it consisted of "Well, we'll do some study of ancient Greece and Rome, because that's the basis of our country, and then, well, we'll skip the fall of Rome, because that doesn't bode well, and then nothing much happens until Columbus discovers America, and then we will cover everything that happened on the North American continent until the end of WW2, because it's the end of the school year and we don't have time for anything more, and that ends on a good note because we won that war. Oh, and nothing important ever happened in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or Australia, so don't worry about that."

 

 

If you had asked me about Japan, India, China.....anywhere without Indians or Pilgrims I would have thought you were nuts. My kids already know more than I did and we're learning a lot of it together.

[Ellie]

Rea Berg, Beautiful Feet Books' owner/author, believes that. Here's what she says:

 

 

 

T

here is a philosophy of teaching which suggests that teachers begin with the dawn of creation and teach history sequentially from that point. Though this sounds good and reasonable in theory, in practice it can lead to history being perceived by a young student as dry, boring, and lifeless. This arises out of the fact that the events of ancient history are often too foreign and removed from the world of your average 6-year-old to hold any significant meaning. On the other hand, young students can readily identify the heroes of America's story, and will be more able to comprehend the remarkable and inspiring stories of Leif Erikson, Columbus, the Pilgrims, Pocahontas, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others who played such providential roles in establishing our nation.

 

 

 

T

here are a number of reasons why we prefer to begin primary grade students with a foundation in early American history rather than teach ancient history first. As Americans, we feel that it is a priority to learn first about our own providential heritage. That foundation acts as a basis for comparison with other cultures. Due to the fact that we are surrounded with icons of our heritage (i.e. The Fourth Of July, images of George Washington crossing the Delaware) the young reader will more readily identify with American history. We are then able to build context around those symbols and events, while discovering new stories in the process.

 

 

 

A

practical reason for learning American history first is simply the abundance of excellent literature available. On the other hand, it is difficult to find good primary level literature for ancient history. A cursory treatment of ancient history, especially related to the Greek and Roman influences on our culture, undermines its contextual relevance. Also, much of the Greek and Roman influence on our culture, in areas such as law, architecture, philosophy, and art - demands a maturity beyond the typical primary student. Additionally, these students will not be able to comprehend the original writings of philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle which is imperative to understanding the ancient world.

Usually, history is taught chronologically for the 3 or 4 years of high school, not just the last year.

 

Not learning history chronologically did not make *me* hate history. I *love* history. IMHO, it's the method that makes the difference, not the timeline.

[FO4UR]

History in school as I remember it consisted of "Well, we'll do some study of ancient Greece and Rome, because that's the basis of our country, and then, well, we'll skip the fall of Rome, because that doesn't bode well, and then nothing much happens until Columbus discovers America, and then we will cover everything that happened on the North American continent until the end of WW2, because it's the end of the school year and we don't have time for anything more, and that ends on a good note because we won that war. Oh, and nothing important ever happened in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or Australia, so don't worry about that."

 

 

Same here:lol:

 

There are some who think young children should only learn of the happy, rainbows and roses, events of history. I wasn't aware of a time period without war and death and sadness, but evidently some have found one......:001_huh:

[Perry]

"Children are naturally ego-centric. The world revolves around them. So start with them and expand their knowledge base outward."

 

Basically, teach what they are familiar with first: self, home, school, community, state, country, world.

 

 

This drove me nuts when my dd was in ps. In first grade, they spent about a month making a model of the neighborhood, complete with the movie store, the Handimart, and the McDonalds. Other "units" were holidays, foods from other countries, and special people (police, doctors, etc.). As far as I could tell, it was a total waste of time. Really, are we in danger of raising children who don't know about the local McDonald's or what a doctor is for? I don't think so.

[RebeccaC]

Dr. Ruth Beechick has some very valid ideas on why not to teach in a solid chronological manner in her book You Can Teach Your Child Successfully. She uses brain development research to back up her idea. She write that the brain is not mature enough to really wrap itself around history/time until the late mid 20s (26 if memory serves me right was a number she used.) We as parents look at chronological history and wonder why we were not taught so because suddenly it makes sense for us but most of us when it suddenly makes sense because we are at or past our mid 20s or at least this is what she writes and I think she has a valid point.

 

There is also another school of thought about how to teach history to children who are truly visual spacial learners global/big picture types who see the forest and get bogged down when asked to focus on just one tree after another vs most other children who tend to be sequential learners learners and need to see each tree before the focus on the big picture or they get over whelmed. To learn more about this you will need to read some neuro developmental psychology research or some of the books written for the laymen based on the research about visual spacial thinking/learning, ect.....

 

I know this is not a real in-depth post but there are well grounded and valid reasons to start with more recent history or to give brief snap shots and slowly move to a chronological type study as the child's brain matures or if the child is a true VS learner. Dr. Beechick felt that chronological study of history should begin in high school but would not really be grasped or fully understood until the mid late 20s. There are a lot of child psychologist who feel the same way. What I have learned to do is look to the folks who are actually studying the brain to get ideas on how and what to teach and to avoid at all costs what is being taught or discussed by folks in the field of education at least when it comes to what is being talked about at the university levels. It has been my experience that it is rare in the field of education that brain development actually factors into the ideas that are embraced or taught to future teachers.

 

I know this is a classical ed board there will be folks for whom chronological study is sacred so I am just tossing this out there and.... :leaving:.... mostly cause I have to run a BSA fund raiser today but also cause I have no desire to hash this out at the moment with the faithful classical purists. I will read the thread later and respond if I have anything of value to add. Hopefully this will be a fun thread and some folks who have really studied child psychology and brain development will chime in with better posts than what I have just written.

Edited February 28, 2009 by RebeccaC

[Mommy22alyns]

The history I learned in school was very slapdash and spotty. I learned pretty much nothing about ancient history and a whole lot about American history up to reconstruction after the Civil War. And nothing afterwards. I took AP US History and got a 5 on the exam but couldn't tell you a thing about WWI.

 

Chronological instruction of history makes logical sense to me. We're learning about ancient history right now and I'll tell you that Becca is far from bored. She loves history and would certainly not call it "dry."

 

I think it's a good thing to play against the "natural self-centeredness" of kids. Instill a wider worldview - we could all benefit from that.

[Kate CA]

Rea Berg, Beautiful Feet Books' owner/author, believes that. Here's what she says:

 

T

here is a philosophy of teaching which suggests that teachers begin with the dawn of creation and teach history sequentially from that point. Though this sounds good and reasonable in theory, in practice it can lead to history being perceived by a young student as dry, boring, and lifeless. This arises out of the fact that the events of ancient history are often too foreign and removed from the world of your average 6-year-old to hold any significant meaning. On the other hand, young students can readily identify the heroes of America's story, and will be more able to comprehend the remarkable and inspiring stories of Leif Erikson, Columbus, the Pilgrims, Pocahontas, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others who played such providential roles in establishing our nation.

 

T

here are a number of reasons why we prefer to begin primary grade students with a foundation in early American history rather than teach ancient history first. As Americans, we feel that it is a priority to learn first about our own providential heritage. That foundation acts as a basis for comparison with other cultures. Due to the fact that we are surrounded with icons of our heritage (i.e. The Fourth Of July, images of George Washington crossing the Delaware) the young reader will more readily identify with American history. We are then able to build context around those symbols and events, while discovering new stories in the process.

 

A

practical reason for learning American history first is simply the abundance of excellent literature available. On the other hand, it is difficult to find good primary level literature for ancient history. A cursory treatment of ancient history, especially related to the Greek and Roman influences on our culture, undermines its contextual relevance. Also, much of the Greek and Roman influence on our culture, in areas such as law, architecture, philosophy, and art - demands a maturity beyond the typical primary student. Additionally, these students will not be able to comprehend the original writings of philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle which is imperative to understanding the ancient world.

Usually, history is taught chronologically for the 3 or 4 years of high school, not just the last year.

 

Not learning history chronologically did not make *me* hate history. I *love* history. IMHO, it's the method that makes the difference, not the timeline.

 

Thanks for quoting Rea. She is a gem and their Early American History is invaluable. I always said that if I could do it over I would do American via BFBooks.com first because as she said, the abundance of excellent literature available. I realized I *can* do it over with my two littlest ones and so I am. My experience with my older set of children was that they did not remember the ancient history we did when they were that young. We spent a *lot* of time and energy on our first ancient run-through and there was very little retained. I found this out on our second run-through ancients.

 

I am going, for the first time ever, to do two history levels next year. I have the oldest three in MOH II, following our MOH I year. I am really looking forward to sharing some of the best books out there with the little ones. They will get their chronologically ordered history when they are a bit older, but they will still know who Washington and Lincoln are and what Thanksgiving and 4th of July are about in their own little American chronology. :001_smile: To each his own - isn't that why we homeschool? :001_smile:

[buddhabelly]

[T]heir Early American History is invaluable. I always said that if I could do it over I would do American via BFBooks.com first because as she said, the abundance of excellent literature available.

 

Beautiful Feet sells Genevieve Foster books. I have only read "The World of Columbus and Sons," which says that the slaves were never mistreated when they were transported from Africa. Um, no.

 

I will not read any more of these books and I am asking my library to pull them from the shelves. I find it silly that books stating that slaves were never mistreated are sitting alongside those that show the slave ship owner's "maps" of how to fit as many people as possible in the cargo hold of the ship (with no room to stand up or sometimes even sit up). They were not allowed on deck to urinate or defacate, so they were lying in their own filth. So I would say that some mistreatment may have occurred.

 

Julie

[lionfamily1999]

We just started, but Andrew is much more interested in civilizations so different from ours than he was (in ps) learning about Washington and Lincoln. It seems, to me, that ancient history is a better fit for a younger child (full of imagination and wonder) than US History. Then, we live in an area that is steeped in US History, so for my kids it's just redundant to learn about it in school.

[Kate CA]

Beautiful Feet sells Genevieve Foster books. I have only read "The World of Columbus and Sons," which says that the slaves were never mistreated when they were transported from Africa.

 

I have this book and looked up the section you refer to. It was not addressing slavery as a whole, but a specific group of slaves. I will quote it:

 

"Other Portuguese captains were quick to see the profit to be made in the slave trade. On August 8, 1444, six ships filled with African natives for sale were unloaded in the harbor of Lagos. A Portuguese chronicler described the sad scene.

 

"Very early because of the heat, the sailors began to fill the boats and take the captives ashore. It was an astonishing sight. Even the hardest heart would have been moved to pity seeing them gathered together; for some bowed their heads with their faces bathed in tears; other groaned and raised their faces to the heavens for help. Prince Henry was there on horseback. He parceled out his share, (as if) having no other pleasure than in thinking that these lost souls would now be saved. Hope was not in vain, for as soon as they understood our language they became Christians. And I who wrote this history have seen them in Lagos (and think) how great must be the reward of the Prince before God for having saved these souls."

 

None of the Africans brought to Portugal were ever mistreated. They learned trades, intermarried, and were soon looked upon as any other Portuguese peasant.

 

How could it not have seemed to Prince Henry that slavery under those conditions could be wrong? But how could he imagine a world without slaves? There had always been slavery since the beginning of time--in the days of the Romans, in the time of Christ. All Europeans who now sailed the Mediterranean might be captured by Moorish pirates and end their days in slavery. African tribes fighting one another sold the women and children they captured to Berber traders who went down from Morocco to the great inland trading center of Timbuktu." (page 29 and 30)

 

This is discussing a specific group of slaves. Not slavery as a whole. I think it is important to know the context. I am not justifying the mindset of those who stole humans and sold them. I cannot understand it, frankly, but it did happen, and this was their mindset. It is history. In later chapters the book goes into the fight against the enslavement of free Indian people of Hispaniola by the church friars. The treatment these Indians received was appalling and this book even gives the message that one of the Dominican Friars gave in the church service to the offending men:

 

""...I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness," he said, "and it will prove to be for you the strongest, harshest, most frightful voice you have ever listened to. The voice tells you that all of you are now living and dying in a state of mortal sin on account of your cruelty and tyranny over these innocent people. Have you lost your reason? Have you lost your senses? Continue as you are doing, you will have lost your souls!" This was the gist of his sermon." (p. 329)

 

I don't agree with your assessment of the book and think it is fair that people know the context of your comments.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Kate CA

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Is this essay online? Do you have a link?

 

TIA

 

It is one of the chapters of the Thomas Sowell collection Black Rednecks, White Liberals. He has written some columns that touch on the same topic. Try here or here.

 

The core of his discussion is that slavery existed for thousands of years. That the idea of slavery being imoral arose in the west. That western powers (particularly Britain) expended lives and money in putting down slavery, even slavery that didn't directly touch its empire. It is worth checking out the book since the chapter is so much more detailed than the columns.

[ElizabethB]

It is one of the chapters of the Thomas Sowell collection Black Rednecks, White Liberals. He has written some columns that touch on the same topic. Try here or here.

 

The core of his discussion is that slavery existed for thousands of years. That the idea of slavery being imoral arose in the west. That western powers (particularly Britain) expended lives and money in putting down slavery, even slavery that didn't directly touch its empire. It is worth checking out the book since the chapter is so much more detailed than the columns.

 

Sowell first wrote about it in "Race and Culture," his culture series is worth reading. (Race and Culture, Conquests and Culture, and Migrations and Culture) They are well researched with many footnotes. He makes some interesting points you won't find anywhere else, and it has some interesting correlations and conclusions. This may be the essay, it has several points that he makes in his Culture trilogy: http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

Edited March 1, 2009 by ElizabethB

[EthiopianFood]

Rea Berg, Beautiful Feet Books' owner/author, believes that. Here's what she says:

 

 

 

T

here is a philosophy of teaching which suggests that teachers begin with the dawn of creation and teach history sequentially from that point. Though this sounds good and reasonable in theory, in practice it can lead to history being perceived by a young student as dry, boring, and lifeless. This arises out of the fact that the

events of ancient history are often too foreign and removed from the world of your average 6-year-old to hold any significant meaning. On the other hand, young students can readily identify the heroes of America's story, and will be more able to comprehend the remarkable and inspiring stories of Leif Erikson, Columbus, the Pilgrims, Pocahontas, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others who played such providential roles in establishing our nation

.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

A

practical reason for learning American history first is simply the abundance of excellent literature available. On the other hand, it is difficult to find good primary level literature for ancient history. A cursory treatment of ancient history, especially related to the Greek and Roman influences on our culture, undermines its contextual relevance. Also,

much of the Greek and Roman influence on our culture, in areas such as law, architecture, philosophy, and art - demands a maturity beyond the typical primary student. Additionally, these students will not be able to comprehend the original writings of philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle which is imperative to understanding the ancient world

.

To the first, children can only identify these "heroes" if they have been TAUGHT about these heroes. And I don't know of any child who can really relate to crossing the ocean in a boat for country that is considered "newly discovered," etc. :confused: If these "heroes" seem more fleshed out than ancient ones, then greater effort should be made in humanizing ancient people as well. Isn't that the point of learning about world history, and not just American? Because we are ALL created equal, and have an important story in the history of the world? The whole point is to TEACH the child why these cultures matter.

 

To the second, children cannot begin to understand the complexities of a country built on the virtual destruction of native peoples, and then further established using human beings seen as less than human because of the color of their skin, all in the name of God's will. Yet these are critical issues to consider when attempting to truly grasp American history. Should we then not teach American history either?

 

Ethnocentrism comes in many shades, folks, and it is even worse when people are unaware that it is the basis of their worldview.

[EthiopianFood]

The core of his discussion is that slavery existed for thousands of years. That the idea of slavery being imoral arose in the west. That western powers (particularly Britain) expended lives and money in putting down slavery, even slavery that didn't directly touch its empire. It is worth checking out the book since the chapter is so much more detailed than the columns.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that slavery long ago was based on debt or the conquering of a nation (therefore an issue of power), while slavery in recent American and European history was based on the idea that people of color were without souls, not created in the image of God, and were, at best, large children. These are two very different things.

[Peela]

I was shocked when our newspaper ran an article a few months bck suggesting that perhaps for the new national curriculum here in Australia, history should be done chronologically. It was just a suggestion. I will be even more stunned if it acutally happens. But glad for the kids. I have learned so much doing history chronologically.

However, we dont do it as chronologically as SWB suggests, the 2nd time around, as I prefer to linger in countries and continents longer and not jump all over the place (Sumer, then Egypt and India, then Ancient Greece then Ancient Rome for example) but without a guide like SOTW the 2nd time through, it is just easier to do it this way anyway. But we are still generally chronological, and I love it. I love having a whole year on Medieval history.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that slavery long ago was based on debt or the conquering of a nation (therefore an issue of power), while slavery in recent American and European history was based on the idea that people of color were without souls, not created in the image of God, and were, at best, large children. These are two very different things.

 

I hate to try to encapsulate an entire chapter and I can't do justice to Sowell's writing. He does address how slavery in the colonies morphed into something that was justified by ideas of race. However, he also discusses how in the 18th and 19th century, while abolitionist were referring to the rights of man extending to men of all races, most other cultures with slaves never even entertained the idea that slaves had any sorts of rights (whatever the reason for their enslavement). He also writes about the trade in eunichs, enslavement as a result of piracy, women being sold into slavery by their own families, etc. He also touches on the factor that while slave ownership in the colonies and early US was based on race, the enslavement of these people was largely a result of warfare, with one African group raiding another for the purpose of selling them (West to Europeans and East to the Islamic world)

 

Like I said, it is an interesting read. It underscores how atypical both the race oriented use of slaves in the US and the abolition movement were.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Sowell first wrote about it in "Race and Culture," his culture series is worth reading. (Race and Culture, Conquests and Culture, and Migrations and Culture) They are well researched with many footnotes. He makes some interesting points you won't find anywhere else, and it has some interesting correlations and conclusions. This may be the essay, it has several points that he makes in his Culture trilogy: http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html

 

This is definitely a longer version than I was able to find online, thanks. The chapter in the book is longer still. I also really enjoyed both the chapter on Germans and the one titled Black Education.

 

I'll have to look for the other Sowell books. I like reading him because he makes my brain work harder to keep up.

[Snickerdoodle]

Rea Berg, Beautiful Feet Books' owner/author, believes that. Here's what she says:

 

There is a philosophy of teaching which suggests that teachers begin with the dawn of creation and teach history sequentially from that point. Though this sounds good and reasonable in theory, in practice it can lead to history being perceived by a young student as dry, boring, and lifeless. This arises out of the fact that the events of ancient history are often too foreign and removed from the world of your average 6-year-old to hold any significant meaning.

 

Anecdotally, my son loved ancient history and couldn't get enough of it. I think history isn't dull, lifeless and boring. I think it's the attitude of the teacher and the materials being used that are most likely dull, lifeless and boring.

[cathmom]

My older dd LOVED ancient history at age 5/6!

 

With my oldest, we did history mainly chronologically, but in first or second grade, we did a quick runthrough of American history because he had questions. We used Scholastic's "Everything You Need to Know about American History Homework."

[unsinkable]

Sebastian & ElizabethB

 

Thank you very much for the info!

[AuntPol]

My daughter's history in school:

 

K: Black History

Holidays: Mardi Gras, Kwanzaa, Chinese New Year

 

1st Grade: Black History (MLK freed the slaves, everything, absolutely everthing was invented, written, painted, by a black person. No books were read by any first grade teacher that did not prominently feature a black person and this trend continues in other grades)

One book read on Abraham Lincoln for President's day

Unit studies on family history, quilts, houses, seven contintents

 

2nd Grade: Black History (Great Americans like Beyonce, Chris Rock, etc)

One book read on the Thanksgiving Story

Unit studies on: How are we alike/different; Rural/Urban communities

 

3rd Grade: Black History

One book read on Columbus

Unit Studies on Elections and government

 

4th Grade: Black History

This is year of NC History by state standards and so they do small unit studies on: cultures of NC (slaves, Native Americans), quilts, lighthouses, and NC sports.

[Perry]

Dr. Ruth Beechick has some very valid ideas on why not to teach in a solid chronological manner in her book You Can Teach Your Child Successfully. She uses brain development research to back up her idea. She write that the brain is not mature enough to really wrap itself around history/time until the late mid 20s (26 if memory serves me right was a number she used.) We as parents look at chronological history and wonder why we were not taught so because suddenly it makes sense for us but most of us when it suddenly makes sense because we are at or past our mid 20s or at least this is what she writes and I think she has a valid point.

 

There is also another school of thought about how to teach history to children who are truly visual spacial learners global/big picture types who see the forest and get bogged down when asked to focus on just one tree after another vs most other children who tend to be sequential learners learners and need to see each tree before the focus on the big picture or they get over whelmed. To learn more about this you will need to read some neuro developmental psychology research or some of the books written for the laymen based on the research about visual spacial thinking/learning, ect.....

 

 

I don't know what research Dr. Beechick used to come to these conclusions, but in general, "Brain Based" educational ideas have no credibility. Neursocientist Dan Willingham has a couple of good introductory videos about

and

, and Illinois Loop has a good page with links to lots of articles.

 

There is plenty of evidence that kids taught history the public school way don't know much and claim to hate history. I teach history chronologically, beginning in first grade, and my kids understand it just fine. I'm sure that the idea of a timeline isn't fully developed in first grade, but that's not a reason to delay teaching history, IMHO.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Perry
wrong link to learning styles

[AuntPol]

I

There is plenty of evidence that kids taught history the public school way don't know much and claim to hate history. I teach history chronologically, beginning in first grade, and my kids understand it just fine. I'm sure that the idea of a timeline isn't fully developed in first grade, but that's not a reason to delay teaching history, IMHO.

 

 

I've been teaching mine mostly chronologically. My son gets way more than my DD since he's at home. We started with "units" when both were in school as it was just easier that way.-ancient Mesopotamian cultures (kind of lumped together), Ancient Egypt, Hebrews, Ancient Greece and Ancint Rome. This year we are doing Ambleside and while mostly doing English history -we've other places sporadically within the timeline (El Cid, Crusades, Marco Polo, Ghenghis Khan) and he's able to grasp that different things happened at same time in different places. He's making great connections (When we read about William the Conqueror landing in England, he saw a similiarity to when Caligula came. He'd forgotten Caligula's name but remembered the story).

[Haiku]

it is difficult to find good primary level literature for ancient history

 

I don't agree with this at all. We did Ancients this year and I felt that there were far more interesting and engaging books on the subject of the ancients than we ever could have had time to read. I was able to wade through a sea of resources and take my pick. There are huge amounts of books on American history written for kids; I concede that fact. However, I find it much harder to find quality American history books for kids. The amount of pure drivel out there is overwhelming.

 

I find SWB's somewhat extreme adherence to strict chronology somewhat of a negative in SOTW, since it breaks the narrative of single nations into too many pieces

 

We simply re-arranged the chapters in SOTW so that we study each culture separately but still in roughly chronological order (i.e., we did Egypt before we did Greece, we did India before we did Rome). To me that's still chronological. We don't have to move year by year to be studying history chronologically.

 

None of the Africans brought to Portugal were ever mistreated.

 

I found the entire quoted passage to be indefensible, but this in particular jumped out at me because it strikes me as thoroughly ridiculous to claim that people who were stolen from their homes and brought against their wills to a new place and life were not ever mistreated, and this entire passage is just an attempt to put a religiously pleasing whitewash on horrible events. I realize that this is a religiously biased book, but seriously ... we stole them from their homeland but that is not mistreatment? Would anyone be ok with this in this day and age?

 

Tara

[AuntPol]

I found the entire quoted passage to be indefensible, but this in particular jumped out at me because it strikes me as thoroughly ridiculous to claim that people who were stolen from their homes and brought against their wills to a new place and life were not ever mistreated, and this entire passage is just an attempt to put a religiously pleasing whitewash on horrible events. I realize that this is a religiously biased book, but seriously ... we stole them from their homeland but that is not mistreatment? Would anyone be ok with this in this day and age?

 

Tara

 

If you read several posts down, you see where that quote is about one particular group of slaves and not all slaves in general.

[Haiku]

If you read several posts down, you see where that quote is about one particular group of slaves and not all slaves in general.

 

Yes, I know that. It's still not ok to steal people from their homes, no matter how small the group of people may be.

 

Oh, and btw, the passage refers to them as "African natives for sale." Selling people is not mistreatment?

 

Tara

[Sara R]

If you are interested in the history, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch discusses how history morphed into "social studies" due to reforms by John Dewey and other progressives in the 1920s and 30s. There never was a counter-movement the way there was with reading and math teaching, probably because history is a content area and not a skill, making it less essential to the child's future, and more easily supplemented at home for a parent who feels strongly about history.

[Perry]

If you are interested in the history, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch discusses how history morphed into "social studies" due to reforms by John Dewey and other progressives in the 1920s and 30s. There never was a counter-movement the way there was with reading and math teaching, probably because history is a content area and not a skill, making it less essential to the child's future, and more easily supplemented at home for a parent who feels strongly about history.

 

 

I loved this book. I'd also recommend The Language Police and Lies My Teacher Told Me for anyone interested in how history is taught in ps.

[cathmom]

If you are interested in the history, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms by Diane Ravitch discusses how history morphed into "social studies" due to reforms by John Dewey and other progressives in the 1920s and 30s. There never was a counter-movement the way there was with reading and math teaching, probably because history is a content area and not a skill, making it less essential to the child's future, and more easily supplemented at home for a parent who feels strongly about history.

 

cool! My library actually has this book!

[Mommy22alyns]

I find it much harder to find quality American history books for kids. The amount of pure drivel out there is overwhelming.

 

 

It's not made any better by the fact that American history books tend to be, hmm... propagandized. It's going to take extra work for me to get a less biased take on AH for my girls. I'm not interested in the whitewashed, perky "The First Thanksgiving" books.. I'm sure you know what I mean. :glare:

[EthiopianFood]

It's not made any better by the fact that American history books tend to be, hmm... propagandized. It's going to take extra work for me to get a less biased take on AH for my girls. I'm not interested in the whitewashed, perky "The First Thanksgiving" books.. I'm sure you know what I mean. :glare:

 

This would be a very interesting thread in the curriculum forum. Will you start it or shall I? :001_smile:

[LaxMom]

Bold mine...

Dr. Ruth Beechick has some very valid ideas on why not to teach in a solid chronological manner in her book You Can Teach Your Child Successfully. She uses brain development research to back up her idea. She write that the brain is not mature enough to really wrap itself around history/time until the late mid 20s (26 if memory serves me right was a number she used.) We as parents look at chronological history and wonder why we were not taught so because suddenly it makes sense for us but most of us when it suddenly makes sense because we are at or past our mid 20s or at least this is what she writes and I think she has a valid point.

 

 

 

Small children are quite able to wrap their brains around very complex, abstract ideas. Like linguistics - in many cultures, multiple languages at once. Just not ours. What about music? Highly complex skills there, yet three year olds are able to translate written music to played notes, if they are exposed.

 

I would propose a counter theory to the neuroscience: "we as parents" understand history a bit better (because, alas, there appears to be a whole majority of folks out there that simply does.not.get.it.) looking at it chronologically not because we are suddenly developed, but because, after spending our entire educational careers being taught incomplete, disjointed rubbish, we have developed the wherewithal to investigate the actual chronology and connections of world events. And go "oooooooh... now it makes sense"

 

I would wager that the reason my 4 year olds have a basic understanding of the election process and my dad had a pretty high-class discussion of the Odyssey with my daughter (when she was 6) is not because of their ever so advanced neurological development, but simply because they have been exposed to these concepts. (They also know what doctors, lawyers, letter carriers, firefighters, etc. do, without any formal classes at all, let alone years spent on the subject.)

 

Ok, off my soapbox, lest I venture into the naked rage portion of my program. ;)

Edited March 2, 2009 by Moderator
Please disagree without snark.

[RebeccaC]

Bold mine...

 

Small children are quite able to wrap their brains around very complex, abstract ideas. Like linguistics - in many cultures, multiple languages at once. Just not ours. What about music? Highly complex skills there, yet three year olds are able to translate written music to played notes, if they are exposed.

 

Ok, off my soapbox, lest I venture into the naked rage portion of my program. ;)

 

So do the majority of young children wrap their minds around algebra and understand it? No and there is a reason why they do not and it has to do with the ability of the brain to fully process and understand abstract concepts. Anyone who has had an entry course in child psychology knows that. Some children can be taught to memorize equations but they really do not understand or fully grasp the concept.

 

Here is a good example of children grasping a shallow depth of something that has much more abstract depth to it. I am sure you are familiar with Frost's Poem Stopping by Woods. There are a couple of lovely children's picture books out on the poem. Most kids will enjoy the poem and a few will get what Frost's critic's accused him of, writing a poem about suicide. The difference is brain maturity and how much abstract the child can deal with. Most folks will not pick up on the underlining theme in Frost's poem even as adults. My oldest son who has a highly gifted IQ did at age 6 before I had even finished reading the poem. He grasped that the poem was about death. I had to do some research to find that Frost was accused of writing the poem on the subject. The same child played the piano at a year.

 

The brain is hard wired to acquire language between birth and age 6 after that time the acquiring of language will be not be as easy. From age 6 to 10 kids can still gain in vocab but the window on spoken grammar has closed 80%. This is what doctor after doctor told us and what I found doing my own research. Our son's had an auto immune disorder that stole their ability to process language. It really is a poor example to use in this discusion.

 

There is a big difference between really grasping the vast expanse of history and the meaning that comes with that knowledge and gaining one or more languages.

 

As to the naked rage portion I suggest that you clothe it with some maybe some Jean Piaget to start. His work is highly respect and taught in every entry class on child psychology.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Moderator

[anewday]

Thanks for quoting Rea. She is a gem and their Early American History is invaluable. I always said that if I could do it over I would do American via BFBooks.com first because as she said, the abundance of excellent literature available. I realized I *can* do it over with my two littlest ones and so I am. My experience with my older set of children was that they did not remember the ancient history we did when they were that young. We spent a *lot* of time and energy on our first ancient run-through and there was very little retained. I found this out on our second run-through ancients.

 

I am going, for the first time ever, to do two history levels next year. I have the oldest three in MOH II, following our MOH I year. I am really looking forward to sharing some of the best books out there with the little ones. They will get their chronologically ordered history when they are a bit older, but they will still know who Washington and Lincoln are and what Thanksgiving and 4th of July are about in their own little American chronology. :001_smile: To each his own - isn't that why we homeschool? :001_smile:

 

Kate, this is what I'd like to do with Ian too - start with American history then move to chronological. That's a few years off yet :001_smile: I am very interested in BFB too - so I'll be eager to hear how your plan goes for you! :)

 

For my oldest 2, we started with My Father's World's Adventures (American geography and history) and then Exploring Countries and Cultures (world geography) the 2 years before starting with chronological history (ancients onward) at grades 4 and 1. We enjoyed it! :)

Edited March 2, 2009 by Dawn

[anewday]

double post

Edited March 2, 2009 by Dawn

[Colleen]

I do prefer to teach history in a somewhat chronological manner. As some of my boys combine their studies, though, each child isn't necessarily starting at the beginning. I don't agree with those who staunchly advocate chronological history as The Best; nor do I concur with those who believe teaching a child about his little town and then branching out is The Best. The important thing is to teach history; to make it come alive via good books and discussion.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Colleen

[Jami]

I don't agree with those who staunchly advocate chronological history as The Best; nor do I concur with those who believe first teach a child about his little town and then branching is The Best. The important thing is to teach history; to make it come alive via good books and discussion.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't remember being taught history chronologically. I have some memory of pioneer and Native American history in 4th grade. And a little bit of ancient history in 6th grade. I think we had Civics in 8th. Early American in 9th, Honors World History (so that was a basic chronology from Ur to modern times) in 10th, and then AP American history in 11th grade covering the Civil War to the present. But I LOVED history. I don't remember a time I didn't. I made connections just fine on my own. I read lots of historical fiction for pleasure, my parents enjoyed history and talked about books at home, I had a few really good teachers (my love of British history was fueled by an English teacher, not a history teacher, as we covered Brit. Lit.).

 

In college I never attempted to arrange my history classes chronologically, but what I *did* do was pair my literature courses with my history courses. And that made both classes more rich and meaningful. My history classes were informed by the literature written at that time and the literature classes were given context for the pieces we read.

 

We jump around plenty here at my house so far and I haven't found that my children have any problem retaining history or making connections between time periods. Sure it's not with a great deal of depth, depth comes with time and more information, but it's hardly ruining history for them for us to be less than chronological. ;)