Janet Eckerson Janet Larson Rich Powers Phip Ross Jami Swanson TEAC 995--Challenges & Opportunities Group

Research Report #1 Teaching What Really Happened: How to Avoid the Tyranny of Textbooks & Get Students Excited About Doing History

Sociologist and author James W. Loewen is best known for Lies My Teacher Told Me: What Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (1995), a work in which Loewen examines a dozen widely used American history textbooks and points out their inaccuracies, misrepresentations, ideological maneuverings and generally poor pedagogical quality. Loewen is deeply concerned with the quality of social studies1 curriculum and instruction in K-12 schools, particularly American History, and in Teaching What Really Happened Loewen widens his gaze from the quality of the content in textbooks to include the way that textbooks are used to deliver historical accounts and how history is taught in K12 classrooms. The problem Loewen (2010) addresses in Teaching What Really Happened is alluded to in the opening sentence of its introduction: History and social studies, as usually taught before college, can hinder rather than help build students' understanding of how the world works, (p. 1). Generally stated, Loewen believes that the quality of history instruction in the U.S. is, in most cases, inadequate, and several issues in particular lead him to conclude that social studies pedagogy may be in crisis, (p. 1). The crisis Loewen (2010) describes has these characteristics: 1. Textbooks skew, in some cases, outright lie, about U.S. history. 2. High school graduates know very little about U.S. history (p. 7). 3. High school graduates often learn incorrect information about American history (p. 2, 8, 9).
1 As Loewen (2010), we use the terms History and Social Studies interchangeably.

4. Students, particularly minority students, do not like history (p. 10). 5. Students do not learn why history is important (p. 11). 6.Current history education produces ethnocentrism (p. 13). 7. The achievement gap between white and minority students, and high and low SES students is particularly high in history classes (p. 17). 8. Students do not learn to do history (p. 12). 9. Students do not learn to use history as a weapon for improving the present (p. 6, 17). The crisis in social studies education is fundamentally caused by the overuse of history textbooks as the primary method through which American students experience the study of the past. According to Loewen (2010), books that are dull and of poor quality lead to disengagement, poor understanding of the causal relationship between historical events, and a general apathy toward historical studies (p. 3, 10, 12, 14). History classes are too textbook-centric (thereby fact-centric) and do not teach critical thinking, which is described by many leading researchers as they key to developing 21st century citizens who are ready to embrace the challenges of a global economy (p. 10, 12, 14, 19, 21). In Loewen's (2010) words, every problem the introduction described stems from relying upon the huge U.S. history textbook (p. 21). However, the textbook is not the lone culprit of hijacking effective social studies education in the United States. Loewen goes on to attribute a measure of responsibility for the achievement gap in history and the history education crisis to teacher expectations (pp. 42-65). Additionally, the author offers another measure of responsibility for the focus on facts rather doing history to the proliferation of standards and standardized assessments, which collectively cause teachers to focus on the twigs of knowledge instead of the forests filled with critical analysis, which will be explored further in our discussion (Loewen, 2010, p. 66). These issues, however, are tangential to the author's central argument about the over-reliance on textbooks as the basis of K-12 social studies education.

To summarize, the author theorizes that the textbook-centric approach, the emphasis on factual recall as opposed to doing history, the absence of teacher pedagogical change over time, and standardized testing have caused the dismal outcomes of history education that he identifies as his central problems of practice. Loewen (2010) employs a mixed methodology in the study of the history education crisis, relying predominantly on his own prior research and personal experience; his research employs four main data sources, which we discuss further in subsequent sections: 1. Previous research conducted by the author, particularly data collected for Lies My Teacher Told Me (1995) and Lies Across America (1999). 2. Qualitative accounts of personal experience and anecdotes. 3. Data from the research studies and reports of other scholars or organizations. 4. Proposed interventions which illustrate Loewens (2010) theory of strong and effective social studies education. Loewen has published several books pertaining to history and the teaching of history, predominantly focused on the inaccuracies in the portrayal of history in textbooks, monuments, and other non-scholarly treatments of historical topics. He authored Lies My Teacher Told Me (1995) and Lies Across America (1999), which utilize both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, Loewen counts the numbers of photos of African-Americans included in history texts and analyzes the tone of passages, in order to expose misrepresented historical accounts, bias, or racism. As an example of how Loewen (2010) uses this data in Teaching What Really Happened, consider these descriptions two common historical misconceptions often taught and reinforced in American schools: [Speaking of the Louisiana Purchase] Not one textbook points out that this vast expanse was not Frances to sell - it was Indian landIn short, France sold the European claims to the Louisiana Territory, (Loewen, 2010, p. 148).

I surveyed six high school textbooks on this point [Why Did the South Secede?], all published since 2000. Not one quoted any statement about why the South secedednot only do our textbooks avoid primary sources, the accounts they do provide sometimes contradict the historical record, (Loewen, 2010, p. 183). Loewen (2010) is clearly at his best when he attacking the huge American History textbook and it is based on these examples of textbook inaccuracies, injustices, neglect and misrepresentation that the reader is compelled to hear out the authors proposals for change. The work's most effective and substantiated argument is for the existence of a problem with the way history is taught and a very clear problem with the way that U.S. History is presented in high school textbooks. He provides numerous such examples of historical fiction and misrepresentations in textbooks that support his theory that pedagogical reform is critical. According to Loewen (2010), departure from the history textbook must occur for accurate history to be analyzed and discussed in classrooms. Though the changes Loewen would like to see to social studies education do not end with eliminating the textbook as the primary mode through which history is taught, he suggests that it is a healthy beginning. Loewen (2010) frequently reports anecdotal data to support his claims about the poor outcomes of Social Studies education. For example, to illustrate the poor recall of rudimentary knowledge incoming college students have of American history: Unfortunately, high school textbooks in American history present the past as one damn thing after another. Few of the facts are memorable, because theyre not shown as related...most high school graduates have no inkling of causation in history (Loewen, 2010, p. 12). A friend who taught the U.S. history survey at Vermont nicknamed its two semesters Iconoclasm I

and II, because he had to break the icons - false images of the past that students carried with them from their high school history courses (Loewen, 2010, p. 9). The author also provides anecdotal evidence that the changes he proposes to Social Studies pedagogy

would produce the desired outcomes, namely, higher engagement and interaction of students, a greater understanding of and appreciation for history, and a cultural shift in how history is treated in our country. These claims are usually portrayed through reports from teachers who have corresponded with the author in response to reading one of his books (Lies My Teacher Told Me or Lies Across America). For example, (in the class of a 6th grade teacher in Illinois) they ended up writing a class letter to the publisher, denouncing their textbook for omitting important information. Now they had become critical readers, ready to question, (p. 39). Or Loewen cites his personal experience doing history with students: then I asked the class What changes took place in American Society between 1961 and 1986 to cause this change?...Right before my eyes, they were doing historiography (p. 71). Considering that the intended audience for Loewens work is the Social Studies teachers themselves, these personal accounts and testimony make persuasive arguments for practitioners who are personally familiar with differences between student disengagement and engagement. Loewen (2010) substantiates some claims with data from external sources, citing both international and national statistics. Quantitatively, his assertion that American students perform poorly and lack deep understanding of the content is supported by 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) statistics in which the organization granted advanced status in U.S. history to only 1% of high school seniors, (p. 7). Occasionally such references to external data are more general, as in, research shows that students spend more class time with their textbook in history-reading the books in class, discussing them...than in any other subject in the curriculum, (Loewen, 2010, p. 12). As such, his depiction of the history textbook as the cornerstone of pedagogical and curricular crisis is difficult to deny. These external sources lend support to the author's contention that this crisis is indeed widespread and systemic, and not simply the case in a few classrooms with a few bad teachers. The majority of Teaching What Really Happened is dedicated to Loewens response to the question: How do teachers get students to engage with history, given that it has traditionally been approached in a mundane fashion by old, white guys who tell their story and none other? Loewen (2010) provides a

possible answer, Historiography. Historiography literally means the study of history and the author promotes it as one of the great gifts that history teachers can bestow upon their students (Loewen, 2010, p. 68). He argues that studying history from a historiographic pedagogical stance is incongruous with current K-12 classroom practice. Exercises that include memorizing a litany of facts, interpreting charts, and reciting geographical regions flawlessly have no place in a history classroom based on historiography. When one engages in historiography, he is scrutiniz[ing] how a given piece of history came to be (Loewen, 2010, p. 68). Rather than a laundry list of facts and dates to memorize, historiography speaks to the ebb and flow of history and searches for explanations as to why and how explanations of history change over time. Teaching What Really Happened maintains that students must acquire background knowledge and shared understanding of facts from which critical arguments are developed, but Loewen's (2010) point is that the emphasis must be on studying history in a way that impacts students as individuals, as responsible citizens. He constructs his proposed interventions from a methodological stance rooted in the idea of historiography; the alternative methods for selecting content, instructional activities and assessments all offer shapr contrast to the existing problem as described by Loewen (2010). The proposed interventions constitute what would be the initial step in the process of design research; Bannan-Ritland (2003) denotes this phase with the term Informed Exploration, (p. 21). Loewen (2010) has identified a problem, generated a theory about its causes based on research and exploration, and drafted a proposed intervention. He has not yet systematically enacted and documented the results of this intervention, phases Enactment and Evaluation, as per BannanRitland (2003). Consequently, the claim made in the subscript of this work's title, Get Students Excited About Doing History, is more conjecture than fact. Loewen (2010) argues that students will be engaged with his proposed interventions, but the claim has not been substantiated with what most of

us would consider data. This is not a failing of Loewen's (2010) work, but rather an indication that further scholarly work should be done. In the following section, we examine Loewen's intervention; how current problems, as identified by Loewen, can be addressed through the study of history as well as outline the fundamental components of Loewens vision for K-12 history. To begin, consider the following: After the Civil Rights Movement, coverage of Native American societies increased dramatically...in 1961, among 268 total pictures, Rise of the American Nation included 10 that contained Native people, alone or with whites. Twenty-five years later, the retitled Triumph of the American Nation had 15. By 2003, Holt American Nation had at least 53, although admittedly, the total number of illustrations had also soared (Loewen, 2010, p. 81). In Teacbing What Really Happened Loewen (2010) has analyzed historical accounts and brought light to social justice issues in several periods of U.S. history, including the Civil Rights Era. In Loewen's theoretical history class, students count photos from different versions of the same book and are left with rich discussion opportunities surrounding the coverage of Native American societies over the last four decadesthrough images. Loewen (2010) proposes that, from here, multiple avenues become readily available through which students and their teacher can discuss, challenge, and explore the past, while utilizing the text in such a way that does not lead students to developing misconceptions about what really happened. Students uncover who is not seen, who is not heard, and who may be misrepresented in a history textbook simply through quantifying images. Though the example is quantitative in nature, Loewen proposes content analysis as a way to teach students how history changes over time, advocating that students can assess both quality and quantity. Content analysis such as the above example is one instructional strategy that falls under the umbrella of historiography that provides a departure from the didactic nature of traditional history lessons.

A second form of content analysis is coined Studying Bad History by the author. In this method, students explore topics that textbooks handle especially badly (Loewen, 2010, p. 76). Guided by these questions, students analyze films, field trips, documentaries, novels, and other historic sources: 1. Determining when the source was created and by whom. 2. Determining why it was created. 3. Exploring who the intended audience was/is for a given source/piece. 4. Identifying who may have been left out of the source and why. 5. Evaluating whether the source is presented accurately. (Loewen, 2010, p. 77) As Loewen (2010) clearly establishes, U.S. history textbooks are filled with inaccurate information, misleading accounts, and one-sided views of what may have really happened; however, textbooks are fundamentally intertwined with the educational system. As such, Loewen (2010) stresses the importance of involving multiple voices when studying history: teachers cannot abandon textbooks altogetherso long as teachers do not let them [textbooks] dominate their classrooms, textbooks can be important aids. But that is all they can be: aids (p. 39). The author suggests teachers assume a pedagogical stance in which they assist students in discovering the power of learning from multiple sources, thereby empowering students to learn and know more than the textbook author. Strategies that engage students in marking up text with questions, challenges, discussion points, and key findings are quintessential to historiography. Leading students through an analysis of differing viewpoints and contradictory accounts can entice learners and begin to reverse the misrepresentation of history while contributing to student growth characterized by critical thinking skills, less ethnocentrism, and greater ability to articulate their history. Another remedy the author offers to the inordinate amounts of time students spend with their textbooks in history class, is encouraging them to do local history. Besides oral history, many other sources can help students learn about their own community...the web...local library...local historical

society and so on (Loewen, 2010, p. 97). Teachers can impose two requirements that help students conduct good history while using the internet: First, although students can (and should) use the web, they must not stop there. Books still exist in the library...we still have the census, newspaper archives, and many other sources, many of which, unlike the web, have been vetted, making them arguably more credible. Second, every source...needs to be annotated, (Loewen, 2010, p. 84). According to Loewen, history education as it is produces ethnocentric citizens. They have fallen into the trap of lies and deceit, thereby establishing a deep belief in an essentially benign history of our country. Why not learn about other cultures? [By] treating the primitive societies that first came to the Americas, teachers can get students thinking complexly about this complex topic of progress. In what ways might their societies have been more fun than ours? More interesting? Healthier? Better? (Loewen, 2010, p. 118). While the previous examples are not all inclusive to the proposed interventions advocated for by the author, they provide a lens through which current practitioners, educational leaders and researchers may consider the current reality and envision potential changes that benefit children and society as a whole. Truly, some of Loewen's most compelling arguments for philosophical and pedagogical change, such as using historiography as a tenet of daily instructional practice, speak to the preoccupations of practitioners in the age of standards and accountability. A crucial centerpiece of Loewens argument is that educators should teach history with an eye towards what constitutes a good society. The author purports: History is power...[it] can be a weapon. Students who do not know their own history or how to think critically about historical assertions will be ignorant and helpless before someone who does claim to know it (Loewen, 2010, p. 12). Moreover, he offers reasons to engage students in the study of history and resulting consequences, thereby producing: 1) better citizens, 2)

more critical thinkers, 3) less ethnocentric citizens, and 4) students who are able to articulate against social injustices (Loewen, 2010, pp. 14-15). Loewen is quite clearly an advocate of critical pedagogy. Deyhle, Hess and LeCompte (1992), summarizing the work of William May, delineate five ethical approaches to qualitative research and Loewens work clearly represents what May calls a critical theory and advocacy stance. Within critical theory, ...[the] researcher functions as adversary to the established and the powerful who already control the media and the levers of power. Because these elites usually operate within the relatively closed world of bureaucratic authority, the researcher is under no obligation meekly to seek permission to study them (May, as cited in Deyhle et al., 1992, p. 606). Clearly, Loewen feels no obligation to seek the approval of textbook authors for his critical evaluations of their work. Loewens philosophical and pedagogical postures are in line with critical theory as he promotes the study of social justice issues, unveiling the Nadir of race relations, and attending to the societal remnants of slavery, examples of persistent social evil that they (critical theorists) feel 'called' to address, (Deyhle et al., 1992, p. 614). Loewen's method for teaching history belies a commitment to question those with power, particularly the authors of history textbooks. A relevant problem that Loewen (2010) does not address concerns the plight of his criticism of textbooks, history curriculum and pedagogical approach in the United States. He avoids a critical discussion and analysis of the historical nature of history. That is, the story that has been taught for generations through our textbooks is deeply engrained in our culture. We as a country have storied events in such a way that it is, for many generations of people, the truth. A lot of people who learned this way, would like it to remain that way, consistent with personal values and beliefs that build upon history. Once students, now many of these folks hold leadership positions in business, civic, and governmental institutions. They make decisions, swing gavels, publish books, and serve on committees and boards.

Much of what Loewen (2010) proposes speaks to teachers doing the work of history instruction in a micro-climate; he addresses how a teacher might finesse local challenges to his interventions, (pp. 30-41). Yet, his paradigm shift seen in a larger, macro-climate is part of a political movement that would prove divisive, challenging to say the least, and maybe even dangerous. Would this be any reason not to pursue it? For some, yes. Realistically, it would take a large, motivated and passionate army of Loewen-believing people to change history books and what happens in most history classes. Because, really, the change Loewen describes goes beyond lies teachers (and textbooks) tell us; parents and grandparents were indoctrinated with these ways of thinking about U.S. history. This history has shaped our collective identity or culture, if you will, in many ways (baseball, apple pies, and Chevrolets!), and in a sense, one could argue, our unfolding history. Recognizing the breadth and depth of this larger paradigm shift is something Loewen (2010) does not concede here. Perhaps, this is because it may be unrealistic at this time, and a more practical strategy would be to spark these small brush fires in classrooms around the country. He speaks to individual teachers to push for change in their classrooms. This is his best hope for change: history teachers themselves. At the micro level, Loewen (2010) discusses a how teachers can approach their principals, win their support, and engage students (p. 31). This will provide teachers who allow students to do history a line of defense against criticism from outside their schools. If principals and department chairs are informed ahead of time of the approach one plans to take, one may foster support and stave off criticism, Loewen suggests. He encourages teachers to develop the lesson plans, connections to standards, and a preface to the school year -- all sage advice that would "engender few parental complaints" (p. 31). A veteran teacher, however, would also understand that the few complaints of a vocal minority is all it would take to ignite a public debate, and the reality is that many administrators will go with the vocal majority to quell any criticism. In 2007, Michael Baker, a nationally board-certified Lincoln East history teacher, was asked to resign after he showed a controversial video produced by HBO, "Baghdad ER." The incident was

covered in an article entitled, Top Teacher Shown the Door After Showing 'Baghdad ER,' in The Progressive. Michael Anderson, who taught with Baker and is now director of education at the University of Wisconsin at Platteville, was interviewed for the article following Baker's dismissal: I believe there were students who went home and were troubled about what they saw, and there were parental phone calls to the principal, and the next day she walked him out the door because she didnt have the courage to stand up to the complainers. This incident highlights where criticism can lead and what can be the result of support or lack of support. (Rothschild, 2007). There is also enough comment to suggest that Baker was more than just a shock jockey in the classroom, a teacher who tries to wake students up. Baker taught thematically and also from present to past, or backward. Former students, both Baker supporters and critics, and others reactions to the event suggest Baker would be praised by Loewen for allowing students to engage in critical thought. One student wrote: "I was introduced to a whole new way of thinking about the world and myself, and for once in school I wasnt pushed to conform. I was valued because of my unique opinionsMr. Baker, you were wonderful, and thank you for everything you taught me about the world and myself. I would not be the person I am today had it not been for your influence and the motivation you gave me to never give up. Another student felt differently: Baker is an anti-American socialist who has been using his classes to attack capitalism and democracy, an e-mailer named Craig wrote. In the same article, Baker said he enjoyed engaging students in critical dialogue. I found that very satisfying. A lot of kids are in classrooms where they are lectured to. Id much rather engage in critical thought and problem-solving, and Ive always had classrooms where we show respect for each other (Rothschild, 2007). Examining the issues involved in Bakers departure from the high school classroom, we can see that some of the most provocative teachers take risks when they try to do what they feel is right. Engaging students in critical dialogues, whether this is what Baker actually did or not, is not just an intellectual endeavor; its an emotional journey too and one that sends ripples out into the broader

community. Both student comments reiterated here emphasize this fact. Loewen (2010) does not recognize this, nor the fact that teachers do get fired for their work that can appear to be an attack on some commonly held ideas about United States history. This direction of thought leads us to consider what education and learning is, how it is defined inside a learning institution and outside of it. Many people may be quite content to have students learn dates, places, and names of events. To some, that is what a history class teaches. These are the twigs of history, as Loewen (2010) laments, the disconnected facts that most can agree on but lend little to understand and use history to guide our future decisions. The role of a teacher in this view of learning is to deposit information. The role of technique would be selection of readings, content and delivery method of lecture notes, and objective assessments. Loewen recognizes, like his teacher readers would no doubt accept, that this is not learning as critical thought that builds an empowering momentum and can evolve in many new directions, depending on the learners ideas, discussions, writings, and exploration of the material in other ways. However, others believe that citizenship is a noun, like passivity, acceptance, and the status quo. The orientation of Teaching What Really Happened (2010) is socially activist in nature. The author wants students to treat history and the ideas that rest in the events and actions as a laboratory for thinking and questioning, where interdisciplinary ideas from religious studies, behavioral sciences, and environmental studies may contribute. Loewen wants complicated conversations; others would like a more simpletons education for their young. To do otherwise could be considered anti-American and socialist. Loewen doesnt explore this piece of the bigger picture of education because, for one, he probably doesnt want to come off as a conspirator any more than he already might be, and, two, he is probably banking on those teachers who do pick up his book are already intellectually enlightened enough to know that teaching and learning is messy and complicated and dynamic. Teachers like those involved in the CPED cohort. Teaching What Really Happened (2010) is a model on several levels for CPED participants.

First, Loewen examines a problem of practice, the method and content of an entire discipline. His work is practice-focused but theoretically based. His personal experience as practitioner, scholar, and researcher all contribute to the development of his ideas as well as his arguments' effectiveness. Also, as a researcher seeking to influence practice, Loewen (2010) has given an example of scholarship that is deeply relevant to practitioners. Specifically, in terms of the University's areas of research, Loewens work distinctly ties to Education Policy, Practice and Analysis (B), because the author is examining how and way larger forces have shaped classroom history education. Moreover, his work is clearly relevant to Curriculum, Teaching, and Professional Development (A), given that it is essentially an argument for curricular reform, and teaching as he propose requires time with other professionals to collaborate with opportunities for authentic professional development as opposed to a sit and get experience. Besides, Teaching What Really Happened (2010) is fundamentally about how to teach a specific content more effectively and to higher aims and better ends.

References Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), p. 21-24. Deyhle, D. L., Hess, A. G., & LeCompte, M. D. (1992). Approaching ethical issues for qualitative researchers in education. In M.D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education, (pp. 597-641). Loewen, J.W. (2010). Teaching what really happened: How to avoid the tyranny of textbooks and get students excited about doing history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Loewen, J. W. (2007). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your high school history textbook got wrong. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Loewen, J. W. (2000). Lies across America: What our historic sites get wrong. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Rothschild, M. (2007, May 10). Top teacher shown the door after showing Baghdad ER. The Progressive. Retrieved from: http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc051007.