Students Don't Know their WWII History.

[Robert Braun]

The excerpt from the Washington Post...

In Schools, a Battle on the WWII Learning Front.
Time, Focus Limit Area Students’ Knowledge.

Tiffany Charles got a B in history last year at her Montgomery County high school, but she is not sure what year World War II ended. She cannot name a single general or battle, or the man who was president during the most dramatic hours of the 20th century.

Yet the 16-year-old does remember in some detail that many Japanese American families on the West Coast were sent to internment camps. "We talked a lot about those concentration camps," she said.

As Washington begins a massive Memorial Day weekend celebration of the new National World War II Memorial on the Mall, interviews with national education experts, teachers and more than 100 public school students suggest that Charles' limited knowledge of that momentous conflict is typical of today's youths.

Among 76 teenagers interviewed near their high schools this week in Maryland, Virginia and the District, recognition of the internment camps, a standard part of every area history curriculum, was high -- two-thirds gave the right answer when asked what happened to Japanese Americans during the war. But only one-third could name even one World War II general, and about half could name a World War II battle.

Diane Ravitch, an educational historian at New York University, said the big emphasis in high schools today is on the internment camps, as well as women in the workforce on the home front and discrimination against African Americans at home and in the armed services.

"Then, too, there was a war in the Atlantic and Pacific," she said....

At George Washington Middle School in Alexandria yesterday, seventh-grade history teacher Eric Bartels led his students through a spirited discussion of World War II that included mentions of Pearl Harbor, D-Day and other battles. But much of the emphasis was on the class's earlier visit to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, a visit to the school by African American World War II pilots and the causes of several of the war's major events.

Instead of seeking the details of the Japanese assault on Hawaiian-based forces on Dec. 7, 1941, Bartels asked: "Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor?"

He got a big response when he asked about American women entering the workforce: "Rosie the Riveter!" several students said....

Many teachers, including Bartels, say they emphasize the social, rather than the military, history of the war, a trend that extends to many universities and through both public and private schools....

Other scholars warn that this approach can leave many students unclear on the details of the conflict and unable to understand what produced victory or defeat....

[Greg Carter]

I have to echo the points of this article- as a product of public school education myself (though a bit of college and some serious reenacting has cleaned me up!), I can say with certainty the following items about the Rockford Public Schools, and my experience from 1984-1997.

1. In no history class did I once read about World War II. My classes generally ended with World War I or the Depression, if we got that far.

2. In no history class after 6th grade did I read about any war after 1865.

3. Emphasis from female teachers tended to be towards "big bad America" and what America does to Indians, Japanese, and on and on. Male teachers tended towards- "we won, thats all that matters."

4. I am a graduate of the US Army JROTC program, and I am ashamed to admit that even their extremely brief section on military history didn't reach World War II.

5. I do not recall reading anything whatsoever about the War of 1812, Korea, or Vietnam.

If this is a model of American students in general, it makes me feel damn low about the future of history. How long will it take todays youth (who I admittedly refer to often as "dummies") to forget their own grandparents' contributions to our country?

GMC

P.S.- just to make sure I don't end up one of the dummies in my last paragraph, let me proudly state that in my family, one man fought in the American Revolution, two in the Civil War, one in the Zulu War, two in World War I, seven in World War II, one in Korea, two in Vietnam, one in the Persian Gulf, 3 enrolled in and completed 4 years of JROTC, and one, my brother, is steaming towards the Persian Gulf as we speak.

[mpcavanaugh]

>How long will it take todays youth (who I admittedly refer to often as "dummies") to forget their own >grandparents' contributions to our country?

Honestly on the whole not very long, but I'd love to be wrong on this.

I don't have a problem talking about the internment camps, or the work of females and discrimination against African Americans at home and in the armed services these are all good topics to talk about BUT what about those that fought? I'm not saying we need to know Patton's middle name but only 1 in 3 can name a General? Huhh!?! What about Ike he became President just a few years later! Jeeze everbody should be able to name at least one battle from WW II a little thing called Pear Harbor?

When I was in college an adult student told a story that in his child's history class they put Truman on trial for War Crimes for dropping the bomb on Japan.....and he was found GUILTY!

Granted I am a 'history nut', heck I even have a degree in it but come on people this is sad, something needs to be done.

Mike
(stepping down off of his soapbox)

[Robert Braun]

mpcavanaugh said:

When I was in college an adult student told a story that in his child's history class they put Truman on trial for War Crimes for dropping the bomb on Japan.....and he was found GUILTY!

Mike
(stepping down off of his soapbox)

Ah yes.

Not long ago, my second son's so-called "history" teacher put Columbus on trial for his all his alleged sins in the New World. The deck was strongly stacked on the side of the native Indians (whose 'testimony' was simply--and admittedly-- 'invented' by some unnamed author) and not a shred of understanding was devoted to the causation and motivation for discovery of what would become the New World. In a few brief emails, I shot holes in the emotional (not factual) arguements on both sides, and to her credit, the teacher renewed her effort by honest research into the topics, instead of mindlessly downloading internet propaganda.

Likewise, my eldest son was put through a similar trial over Truman, the "Enola Gay" and the hubris of America to use atomic wepaons on Japan. Ignoring Japan's own nuclear program (Germany had one, too, until the bombing of Norsk Hydro heavy water distilling plant in Norway.) "Wouldn't an off-shore demonstration have been enough?" was the screed of this New-Age freshly minted high school teacher, with her skull overflowing with internet nonsense. I called her and gave her the number of our then-Civil War Round Table president Russ Fay-- an Infantry G. I. slated to be part of the first wave of the invasion force against mainland Japan. "Ask him if an off-shore demo would have been enough" I said.

Well... silly her! She CALLED Russ up! ;D She asked him if he thought dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was worth it. "Hell YES!" Russ retored. "Without those wepons I and most of my buddies were goners... flat out. We would have been dead." When she got into the moronic "off shore demo" arguement, Russ informed her "The Japs didn't believe we had such a weapon! They told their people it was a natural disaster! Truman had to drop the second one just to prove we really had the atom bomb."

She then changed her tactics, and asked her students to write a comparison and contrast paper on the concentration camps vs. the fire-bombing of Dresden.

Yes... its a favorite tactic to place historic figures on trial... usually without adequate knowledge of the historical context, chronology, or sufficient background to render an adequate and sensible judgement. But why do this in the first place? What other purpose is there in this exercise but to denigrate the defendant?

More proof-- my "survey course in American History 1865-Present at Marquette University ca. 1992 included an analysius of recollections of the Haymarket Riot. Ten documents for review. One of them was from the company perspective; NINE were from the perspective of organized labor. Guess which side the class came down on??

More? We spent nine minutes... NINE MINUTES on WWII. We spent 22 minutes on MLK's Selma Alabama march.

What has to change is that teachers and history professors need to teach students the think analytically and render appropriate judgements based on the availabe facts and evidence--- NOT tell their student what and how to think. What has happened is-- today's educators are so stuffed with educational "processes" and educational "theories" about "how does Johnny learn?" they have no time for understanding the historical detail they are charged with imparting.

When the priorities change, education will change.

[gorentz]

"What has to change is that teachers and history professors need to teach students the think analytically and render appropriate judgements based on the availabe facts and evidence--- NOT tell their student what and how to think. What has happened is-- today's educators are so stuffed with educational "processes" and educational "theories" about "how does Johnny learn?" they have no time for understanding the historical detail they are charged with imparting."

I'd like to argue with this just a leetle bit, because I think we mostly agree.

The part that makes me nervous is when you say we need to teach students how to think analytically. What that usually translates to in the classroom is teaching students how to regurgitate the prejudices of their teachers.

What we really need to do is teach the FACTS of history - names, dates, places, events. Only when students are equipped with that, do they have anything to think analytically about.

But for the past 60 years, educators have been taught that it's terrible, just terrible, to teach facts. (Usually the perjorative adjective "dry" is added. "Dry facts." )

Attitudes are more important, they say. Well, yes, maybe attitudes are more important. But *teaching* attitudes amounts to indoctrination, not education. And students need to know something about which to even HAVE attitudes.

Learning HOW to learn is what students need, they say. The specific facts don't matter, they say. But the way to learn HOW to learn is to start learning something. The more facts they learn, they more they can build on, and then learn how to analyze and compare.

Well, those are just a few of the educational shibboleths that are trotted out when this subject comes up. I could go on at book-length about them.

Well, one more point. Educators decry "dry" facts. But history that is taught in vague generalities is boring. It's when you get into the specifics of real individuals who did real things on particular dates, at particular places, that it gets interesting.

One of my own pet peeves about history education is the line about how the Iroquois confederation provided the basis for the U.S. Constitution. My son's high school teacher tried peddling that line, and I confronted him about it, hopefully with some success, though he got evasive about it. It's peddled by tour guides at historic sites, and in some state curriculums. It's a fraud. Anyone who has even *read* the U.S. Constitution and who has read the least bit about Iroquois social organization would know that it is false. When I first heard this line being peddled by a local history buff, I was really pissed off. I knew enough about U.S. Constitutional history to know just from that that it was nonsense. I went out and read some of the original articles by the so-called historians who were pushing this idea (just to be sure I wasn't missing something) and I also went out and started reading about the Iroquois. That was the beginning of a life-changing experience. I was surprised to find that many of my ideas about Native American culture were mistaken. There is a lot about the Iroquois culture and that of other Indian people that we would do well to learn. There are a lot of lessons there that can be useful in understanding some of the changes taking place even now in our society. One thing led to another and I ended up learning about Black Hawk and his people, and revising a lot of my ideas, seeing our history from the point of his view of his culture as well as my own. There is a lot about the Iroquois that I wish students DID know. But this notion about the U.S. Constitution and the Iroquois is a fraud.

Students who learn a few facts will be immune to these frauds, though. You are dead-on in your last sentence about teachers needing to have time for the historical detail. That is what is needed. We need to get them to quit apologizing for historical detail.

Oh, another item. You talked about the review of primary source documents in a college class. There has also been a trend to use primary source documents in high school history classes and earlier. I think this is mostly a bad thing. Yes, students should know about source documents and have some idea of how the distilled information comes to them. But a little study of source documents can go a long way. At the high school level, and even at the undergraduate college level, most of the time should be spend learning the distilled information: What happened, who did what to whom, when, and where. And with that as a basis, we can start to learn about why. But to teach "why" without a strong basis in "what" is to open the teaching of history up to a lot of mischief.

John Gorentz

[Robert Braun]

I think we agree on many points.

To your point regarding "thinking analytically," students simply must be educated to form informed conclusions based on the information. History "was what it was." It is the "story of what happened." It is not the story of "what should of happened," or "what we wish would have happened." Students must be taught to analyze data (i. e. source documents) and ask good questions about the data. Today, as a general rule they are not taught to think analytically-- to ask questions like "What is the source of this information?" "How did you come by these numbers?" "How was that conclusion derived?"

In secondary education, and certainly on a collegiate level, there is no such analysis unless it is instructor-led. In fact, such inquiry is often clearly and unquestiongy stymied. IMHO a hisotry educator worth his salt usually can quote his/her sources on demand. However, most (but not all) demand "if I say it, it must be true" compliance.

They are, generally speaking told what to think, rather than being educated to think for themselves.

I think that the use of source material is actually a good means to impart analytical thinking. Expose the document and its writer to a battery of questions... with the answers derived we may gain a deeper insight to the casuation, motivation, and insights to this segment of history, and hence a deeper understanding of the mosaic as a whole. We agree that a foundation for such analysis is important for this method to be a success.

I am also adamantly opposed to what I call "glurge history"--- syrupy factoids that make students go "aaaahh!", impart a warm glow to the instructors, but have little or no basis in fact. In fact, much of it is simply an invention-- made-up history often imparted to establish an indoctrinal point. You presented one apparent example of "glurge history."

Regards, Bob.

[pshrake]

Interesting thread

I would disagree with John about the use of primary documents in the classroom. If the intention is to present "just the facts" documents are perhaps the best way to do that. The historical record, and indeed the different interpretations on history come from, or should come from primary documents. What better way for the students to learn about an event than to have them read sections of diaries, reports, period newspaper accounts, correspondance, or period government documents. When combined with the added "facts" provided by the teacher you give the student, not only the facts, but the evidence at hand. Then and only then can they develop analytical skills.

Last fall I had the oportunity to teach a Western Civ course at U.W. Richland center. Basically it was ancient and Midieval history. We had a lot of ground to cover and precious little time. I had my class read about the battle of Thermopalye from Herodetus. We read about Thomas Beckett from the Plantaganett Choronicles. Our discussions surrounding these events came directly from period accounts.

Concerning Herodetus, nearly everyone said that the reading was boring (it was long too, I socked them with an 82 page over the weekend assignment) But they got a detailed period account of the campaign, and whats more, we were able to discuss the document itself. Using the fact that the account was dull and dry, we discussed how the historian uses such material to piece together a larger story. It was also an excellent tool to discuss the complexities and difficulties facing historians. What was most interesting to me though was, out of a class of 40 students, I probably had 15 different interpretations of the same reading!

So, to make a short point long and tedious, my overall comment is, concerning documents in the classroom, dont knock it until you try it.

Pete

[gorentz]

Regarding primary documents in the classroom, I hope it didn't come across that I'm against it. What I'm in favor of is a proper balance. "A little bit goes a long way."

They are a wonderful learning and teaching tool. You don't need to convince me how valuable they are and how exciting they can be.

The problem is, life is short. Young people are young only for a short time. We have them only a brief time in class. When we hear that an American history course spent only nine minutes on WWII, well, that is the sort of thing we're going to get if a lot of time is spent with primary documents. Even if you cut out an inordinate emphasis on the internment camps, you're not going to have time enough to do justice to this and many other deserving topics if you're making inordinate use of primary documents or other exciting and photogenic activities.

Think of the many thousands of historians who have slogged through the archives so that they can provide narrative histories for us to read. We can't possibly hope to recapitulate that effort in class, no matter how effective is "discovery" learning or "inductive" learning (or whatever the current buzzword is).

One of my favorite tools for broadening my horizons is my subscription to American Historical Review. I read the book reviews, which are distillations of distillations (books) of distillations of information. Once in a while I dig deeper into a topic that I learn about through this medium, but I have to be extremely selective. Even more so in the classroom.

And you're really not teaching all there is to know about primary documents, anyway. You're pre-selecting the documents for the students, which means you're spoonfeeding them just as much as if you were lecturing. You're not teaching the students how to find the documents -- how to learn of their existence. Maybe you're teaching them a little bit about how to weigh the documents, but I would wager a small amount of money that you're leading them by the hand quite a bit. Especially for younger students this is true.

Now it seems to me that the really good teachers who are using primary documents are doing a lot more than using primary documents. That is as it should be. However, they sometimes mis-describe what they themselves are doing, and that has mischievous consequences. In my own kids' school district, terrible ideas were instituted for rearranging the school day, sold to us on the grounds that teachers would teach in entirely new ways -- hands-on learning, discovery -- I forget all the current buzzwords. The superintendent sneered at the idea that kids needed to learn facts, saying they could look them up on the internet. That anti-intellectual attitude has deadly consequences.

Well, I'm starting to jumble too many aspects of this topic altogether, and I really need to stop. I should be getting ready so I can go off on a history bike ride in a few days.

Suffice it for now to see that I think history teachers who DON'T make judicious use of primary documents are doing a disservice to their students. But a little bit goes a long way. The use of documents shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of learning dates, places, names, events--the more of those the better.

John Gorentz

[Chris]

I have seen a use of primary documents that can be extremely relevant to students, especially those in a community that is not extremely mobile.

It is a book made up of newspaper articles from one town, during WWII. Such a book, used alongside a standard history text, with a moderate amount of other primary materials, might provide a better balance, particularly when used in that town/county. Purchasing info on that book:

The Warsaw Diary
ed. James P. Maloney
3301 Candlewick Drive
Bettendorf IA 52722
Ph 359-6534
[e-mail]

He probably doesn't live very far away from most of you.

Please note that I am not a history teacher, although I would have become one if my perspective had been tolerable to "the powers that were" at the time I made that choice.

BTW, I am not too focused--- I am currently wading my way through Josephus.