Is There a Case against Teaching History Chronologically?

[Reya]

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.

 

 

 

Yup. Me, too. It's a bit annoying to have to do, though. :-P I guess I'm lazy. Editing out errors that I already knew about was annoying, too. *sighs* It's HARD to write a history of the world. I know it is. But some of them...argh............

[Reya]

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:

 

Never mind the job that's done on Squanto! A clever, intelligent man in a position both powerful and dangerous--turned into a wishy-washy Noble Savage White Man's Friend.

 

Pah!

[Reya]

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.

 

 

Well, the slave ship OWNERS would have certainly liked this to be the case, but until they started paying their captains bonuses for less than 2% (2 or 3...I forget....) of the slaves dying on the voyage...well.......you have to be a pretty messed up person to agree to be the captain of a slave ship in the first place, and downright psychotic and sociopathic captains existed, and the stories of their brutality can match the most depraved criminals of our day, that's for sure.

 

What bemuses me is the oft-published picture of slaves packed into a ship like sardines. That's an anti-slavery propaganda flyer drawn by someone who had never seen a slave ship--which is NEVER mentioned in Am Hist textbooks. The actual slave narratives that exist say they had considerably less room than that!!!!

 

That said, simplification is required in children's books. Children in American schools have been raised with the idea that a slave is A) black, B) on a plantation, and C) physically beaten with regularity.By this definition, no, these slaves weren't mistreated. It's a shame that abuse is put forward as a reason that slavery is bad because the thoughtful child soon discovers that this is NOT the case for most slaves--even many who meet criteria 1 and 2 don't meet 3. So they come to the conclusion that slavery must not have been bad, then. Slavery should be argued against because it is wrong to treat people as things, period--no matter how well treated the "thing."

Edited March 3, 2009 by Reya

[Reya]

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.

 

 

Just so long as they don't try to do the whole history every year. :0) Then you;ll get the PS phenomenon of LOTS of Mesopotamia, Egypt, etc., quite a bit of Greece and Rome...and then a mad dash to the Reformation as the teachers realize how far behind they are, a couple of jumps across exploration, Elizabeth, Americas, the French Revolution, and then a quick slide through the Industrial Revolution just in time for a breathless stab at the world wars. :-)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

My dad teaches seminary and he says there is a huge difference between what his under grad kids can grasp and what his grad students do.

I am now just shy of 50 and I understand and know that what I thought I understood at 26 or 36 is not close to how I understand and know it 50. The brain continues to mature as we age. For a 28-36 year old to think, Wow I finally understand _________ and I should teach my kid this way, is a fallacy for many reasons, one being that your brain is much more mature than your child's.

 

Of COURSE there is. His grad students are the elite of his undergrads further on in their instruction! Are his 30-y-o grad students categorically better than his 23-y-o ones? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

His grad students have more training than his undergrad students.

 

I find that typically the difference in students of differing ages (when speaking of adults) has less to do with the fact that older=smarter or more capable but instead reflects a differing set of values and priorities. Older students in graduate programs typically have a more clearly defined set of goals, time management experience and study skills. They also tend to place more importance on learning and less on socialization. The focus intently on their studies so that their free time can be spent in employment or with family. While this is certainly not a 100% formula it is a fairly good generalization. This is a distinction that can be perceived in an age difference of only a couple years. That being said this has no bearing on the ability to learn or perform in the classroom.

 

What is being referred to is the older person's bringing to bear more life experience. At my age I have no better understanding of the subjects I study. What I have is more time spent studying those subjects. A wider knowledge base to draw on. That doesn't mean that someone 10 or 20 years younger than I can't have more knowledge of a given subject or that their opinions should be suspect because they are only in their 30s.

 

To say that a person's age predetermines what they can learn is stretching things a bit far. In children that is too great a simplification. And the entire point of homeschooling is that education can be tailored to each child and that the educator works so closely with the student that they know what is actually being learned. Of course there are some concepts, such as time, that are hard for a child to grasp. To appreciate the difference between 100 and 1000 years may be difficult. This is no reason not to teach history chronologically. School age children are perfectly capable of understanding before and after. That is the point in early history studies, to show the growth and change in history over time. Learning this is no different than the number lines and patterns studied in mathematics at the same age.

[Zoo Keeper]

I agree that even little guys are able to appreciate history from other continents and cultures. But I also remember how much I enjoyed learing American history when I was small; this is how we compromise: we are doing ancient history for our "school" this year, but we have a shelf full of some of the plethora of picture books/early readers available on presidents, national monuments, settling the west, any of the wars, etc. The kids get them out and we read and talk about them for FUN. We also take a break from our "school" history and celebrate any of the patriotic holidays--Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, Washington's birthday, Patriots' Day, the Fourth, etc. On those days we read, cut, paste and do coloring pages, decorate, have a blast. My guys have absorbed AND retained a lot of American history this way and have enjoyed it. My oldest is looking forward to learing a "whole bunch more about these guys" when we work our way up there in our flow of history. Another plus--low cost and low prep for me!

Edited March 3, 2009 by Zoo Keeper
spelling!

[Nan in Mass]

Those sound familiar. Thank you.

[Colleen]

Susan I am sure is a fine woman but she is not infallible and she is still fairly young. She has yet to grad one student and admits that only her first child is purely educated in the WTM manner. She is also not the only teacher in her hs, there is her mother, her dh, and folks that she has written about that tutored her oldest. So how much can she really speak into the day to day of hsing? She teaches at the college level, has been working on her Ph.D, and she writes how much time does she really put into the day to day teaching of her kids? I am not sure that she is an expert in education or what a child can or can not learn or how they all should learn. Does she have some wisdom sure. Is she creative sure. She has some good ideas for some kids. Do I like some of her products yes but she is not my guru. I hope Susan that you do not take this personal because it is not meant that way. It is just the way I see it.

 

That's pretty brassy to post on SWB's own Web site. I'm gobsmacked.

 

In what sense were Rebecca's comments "gobsmacking"? For the most part, she's stating the obvious, imo.

[Lovedtodeath]

In what sense were Rebecca's comments "gobsmacking"? For the most part, she's stating the obvious, imo.

 

Well, let's see... these boards are hosted by Susan. It is presumed that those on these boards are in some way following her book on how to educate our children. The post was saying that she is not an expert on educating children. I don't know what you are having a hard time figuring out here.

[Lovedtodeath]

To go further it appears to me that it is saying if any of us has a part time job, help teaching from any party, or writes curriculum then we must not really be homeschooling, because we used some of our time to do other things.

[EthiopianFood]

So if they cannot understand the complexities of countries built on the virtual destruction of native peoples then, according to your viewpoint, they cannot possibly understand anything in the ancient world. The entire fertile crescent was conquered over and over and over again by one waring group after another without a single thought to the "native peoples" living there. Why America is only ever lambasted for this is beyond my comprehension. Nothing is new under the sun.

 

 

 

Because some of us want our children to understand something of our country--that makes us ethnocentric? Because BF Books believes this too, this makes them ethnocentric? This is a false premise. If you don't *know* them then you cannot possibly judge their choices in this manner. Their website has many books on ancient and medieval history. They just choose to study it later. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and so are they. Just because some of us like to be familiar with our founding fathers doesn't make us elitists.

 

This thread has gone far past this topic (we've been having computer problems :glare:), but to be brief, your first statement honestly doesn't have anything to do with my original post, which was in response to the idea that young children cannot comprehend ancient history. To address it anyway, the difference is that I am not teaching my children to be patriotic toward any of these countries/civilizations.

 

To your second comment, my response was to their own statement on why certain topics should be studied at what time. Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions, which is why I made my comment. :001_smile: I stand by what I said originally, and don't really have an interest in going back and forth about it, as I have a feeling we won't get anywhere. I think a core issue is our personal beliefs in the role of patriotism, and that is better suited for another thread, I'm sure you will agree.

[EthiopianFood]

You're wrong.

 

:-)

 

Slaves came into the state of slavery through multiple mechanism:....

 

This is why I said "correct me if I'm wrong." :D The day I claim to know everything is the day... I don't know. But I try hard not to do this. LOL Thank you for your post. I don't like to automatically believe whatever anyone posts, for obvious reasons, but your points do ring a little bell in the back of my brain. I will be thinking about this. I believe this was a case of not integrating two lines of thought, learned at two different points in my life.....

 

Which leads us into the current topic! How perfect. Just to add my personal experience, I have the same difficulties as a previous person, who said they still have "ah ha" moments when they realize that different events in history (which have a very different "feel") actually occured at roughly the same time. This is why I have chosen to educate chronologically. If folks can help their kids make these connections along the way using a different method, Godspeed! Maybe it is what another poster said, that it isn't that the public school system wasn't chronological, it's that they use a "helicopter" approach to history. Very interesting analogy.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Would someone please explain to me what a "helicopter approach" to history is?

 

Thanks! (I want to avoid it but I need to know what it is first! :lol:)

[Perry]

Matroyshka explained it here.

[unsinkable]

Would someone please explain to me what a "helicopter approach" to history is?

 

Thanks! (I want to avoid it but I need to know what it is first! :lol:)

 

I think it means teaching history by landing in different places and times...flying from place to place with no connections to each place.

[Sara R]

I was reminded of this thread today. I just learned that Utah requires two years of state history, in both 4th and 7th grades. They also require only 2 years of world history (6th and 9th grades), and 3 years of US history (5th, 8th, 11th). There is just as much time spent studying state history as world history (and more US history than world history). Amazing.

 

And there's just not much to Utah history, you know? There's only been written history in Utah since 1847. What's more, Mormon history and Utah history overlap a lot, and the 60% or so of the Utah population that is Mormon already know a lot of Utah history from their studies at church.

 

I remember SWB saying that Texas requires 2 years of state history as well. Texas probably has more of a reason to require that much state history, since they used to be their own country and all. :tongue_smilie:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I suppose, then, that the graduate paper I did on the underlying syntax indicated by the clitic decision tree branching in various Spanish dialects when I was merely 20 must have been rote memorization...of novel research never done by anyone else, yes?

 

This is complete nonsense. Correlation does not mean causation. Most American adults do not understand arithmetic. That doesn't mean that they aren't mature enough; it means they weren't taught well enough and weren't smart enough to figure it out on their own. That's why Singaporean sixth graders, on average, understand arithmetic better.

 

No, but I think one could argue that while a young adults can and certainly do engage in complex research and rigorous scholarship, their respective brains may still have a ways to go until they reach full maturity. It's not a personal *slam* on anyone's intelligence or maturity. It's merely a physiological phenomenon. And, as with everything on the developmental spectrum, there will be statistical outliers.

 

But I say this as a person who, in her twenties, would have scoffed at such a notion. So while I understand what you're saying and why you're saying it, I have a different perspective now.

[myfunnybunch]

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."

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hoo hoo hoo! Hee hee hee hee!

 

That pretty much sums up my history education.

 

.....still :lol:

 

Cat

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Old post. Mea culpa.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Pam "SFSOM" in TN

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

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.

 

And my case (such as it is) is that Colleen is spot on correct.

[Annabel Lee]

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.

 

:iagree:

[Mamagistra]

You know...

 

Ok, I'm going to say it, because it bears saying. If you know of errors, please email them to Susan. Or kindly post them. Add a link in your signature line about the numerous and annoying errors in SOTW. Anything.

 

But all the being annoyed at all those supposed errors and sighing and being all aggravated about it On The Author's Board without giving chapter and verse? I'm kinda not trackin' your vibe here. What do you hope to accomplish with this? Riling up your hostess? Stirring up strife? Forcing a new edition with "corrections"? An errata page on the PHP website?

 

Say what you have to say, but do it directly and with citations, please. Pee or get off the pot.

 

:iagree: AKA: Amen, sistah! :D

[Kelli in TN]

Yup. Me, too. It's a bit annoying to have to do, though. :-P I guess I'm lazy. Editing out errors that I already knew about was annoying, too. *sighs* It's HARD to write a history of the world. I know it is. But some of them...argh............

 

Could you please clarify? Because I do not even know where to BEGIN to research these errors I am concerned that I am setting my children up for failure here. You have alluded to these errors from time to time. Please share what you found.

[Nan in Mass]

Too funny! Or perhaps sad? That is exactly how much history I managed to take out of the public school system.

[MIch elle]

. Amazing.

 

 

 

:iagree: Dumb if you ask me!

 

 

As far as I know, Massachusetts doesn't require state history.

[Colleen in NS]

. :)

Edited March 26, 2009 by Colleen in NS

[Kelli in TN]

Well, in hopes of avoiding more ruckus around Reya, I'd just like to mention that this thread was resurrected and her comments are old. They were made before the, *ahem*, history events on the high school board.:leaving:

 

Oh, goodness. You are right. This is old.

 

Well, maybe some day she will enlighten us anyway.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well, in hopes of avoiding more ruckus around Reya, I'd just like to mention that this thread was resurrected and her comments are old. They were made before the, *ahem*, history events on the high school board. I haven't seen anywhere that she's going to say what errors she sees, so I kind of doubt it's going to happen. :leaving:

 

Oh my goodness, Colleen, you are right. And I am clearly being stupid.

 

Thank you so much for pointing this out. I'll delete my post and ask Deb to delete her reply to me.