9-10+History+Curriculum+Development


 * __9-10 History Curriculum Discussion (DAA 2010-2011)toc__**

**__Semester One__**
We decided to adopt the AERO standards for social studies.

**__March 29, 2011__**
We discussed some of the ways that we might structure the history courses in grades 9 and 10. We discussed many options but seemed to end up debating a few: Teaching European History from Classical Civilizations to the Present or teaching Modern European History (Renaissance to some time in the 20th Century) in the first two years of high school. :


 * Obviously, the scope of the first option is much larger in terms of the amount of pure history content that would have to be covered. The benefit of this would be that students would be exposed to a broad range of history. They would have studied in one form or another much of what we might consider necessary for a good basic high school education in history. However, covering this much history is challenging, so we considered a second option.


 * The Modern European History option covers a much more limited range of time/content. Yet, it might make it possible to focus more effectively on teaching students how to "think like a historian" and give us a better chance of actually helping students some of the skills necessary to think critically about history. One idea that was discussed at considerable length here was the possibility of making our first unit one in which we focused almost exclusively on introducing these skills and beginning to develop them. It was suggested that we might use a novel or engaging work of historical nonfiction to engage students in history right from the beginning in high school. The idea of this first unit, in addition to developing some of the essential skills of successful history students, would be to spark an interest/passion for history in our students.


 * We left the meeting with a few questions, especially about the second option. I have started to try to answer them below. Please add your thoughts.


 * __What book could we use to spark student interest and teach the essential skills of studying history?__


 * __What would be some of the units of study in the second unit?__

__Below are some excerpts from //Western Civilization in World History// by Peter Stearns that were part of our discussion.__

__On the Political Controversy over Teaching Western Civ __

The clash of world views is fascinating, and not easily resolved. But it raises a number of key questions. First – and this one will preoccupy us recurrently throughout this essay: how much does the extra baggage thrown into the pleas for Western civ distort our historical understanding? If Western civ instruction is intended to discipline diverse cultures within the United States, for example, does this also involve a tendency to preach and whitewash, rather than analyze the Western experience? We will see that, as the tradition of teaching Western civ developed during the 20th century, so many matters were assumed that key questions – including, sometimes, a careful discussion of when Western civ began or even precisely where it was located – were left untouched. Many of these problems are fixable, but they must be addressed if Western civ teaching is to live up to its promise.

The second set of questions involves the possibility of reconciliation. There is no hope of bridging the gap between West-is-best conservatives and the West-bashing minority in the world history camp. They seek to argue about values, and use and distort history only as a pretext for their cultural campaigns. But lots of folks between the partisan extremes may sensibly wonder, why not do a bit of both. Indeed, many high school world history courses attempt to do precisely this, by calling themselves world history but seen through a Western lens – and sometimes fails really to analyze the West as well. Students are left with a pile of facts about the West, and scattered forays into other regions, with little but mishmash as result. But other compromises can be imagined. Students could take their Western course in high school, and then a world survey in college – if conservatives would relax their relentless pretensions to define purity in college-level general education. Even here, there are drawbacks: what about the students who do not go on to college but who nevertheless need some perspective on the wider world? What about the many students who do not remember high school work well enough to integrate it with college instruction?

Clearly, American education would benefit from some explicit experiments in combining Western and world history through various kinds of sequencing – experiments that are difficult, however, in the current culture wars climate. But even before experimentation, we can begin to improve on the existing roadblock by thinking about Western civ differently – actively, but differently, in ways that can better help relate it to world history. Through this, in turn,we can reduce the needless either-or qualities of the West versus world curricular quagmire. This is the goal this book seeks to serve.  __On defining the appropriate time period in which to teach Western Civ __ It is quite difficult to decide when Western civ began, though debating the question of origins is rewarding and interesting. We have seen that the initial Western civ tradition, launched by Robinson, assumed that the answer to the question of origins was virtually automatic: there is a single story from the ancient river valley societies onward. What should have been discussed and worried about, here, was simply assumed. As Western civ courses have evolved, taking realities like length of semester into account, different beginning points have been decided upon. Again, however, the tendency has been just to get started, rather than to debate. Here, if briefly, we debate. There are really three choices, and one of them is pretty clearly not worth too much attention. Choice 1, with Robinson, ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. This is the bad one. Choice 2, with lots of scholars and many of the conservative proponents of Western civ today, is classical Greece and Rome. Choice 3, my own preference, but again only with careful justification, involves the Middle Ages, after Rome’s collapse in the West.

__Some thoughs from other history teachers (not at DAA)__
 * **Bob Dodge** taught Western Civilization, AP European History and Modern European History among other courses at the Singapore American School for over two decades. Here are some of his thoughts. Bob has written a few books on history. One is called //[|The Strategist: The Life and Times of Thomas Schelling].// The other is called //[|Prarie Murders: The True Story of Three Murders and the Loss of Innocence in a Small North Dakota Town].//


 * "IB or no IB there is cultural literacy and you have the one chance many of those kids will have to learn the difference between Plato and Aristotle and where democracy, republic, senate, veto all came from plus to see the extent of human capabilities. Sparta and Athens remain unmatched as expressions of lifestyles and Alexander is a singular individual who altered the course of history. There was that Jesus guy too, and the Roman Empire remains an unmatched total controling political unit, making the fact that it didn't survive worth study. But, you will probably spend most of your second year on fascism in Europe so the kids will all be guaranteed good scores on the IB exam."


 * "As far as Stearns is concerned, I discount him. If he is debating whether to include the river civilizations I know some people skip them and go with the Greeks, but they have left out half of the time man would be classified as civilized. I know I liked spending more time on that than most but the same conflicts came up then that have continued ever since and some answers were provided that still impact the present. You also ignore the basic demographic changes that determine todays ethnic situation in may cases though it is unexplained with the Indoeuropean migration and the semitic migration back 4000 years ago. Egypt and Mesopotamia created the civilized world and are worth hearing about. You skip Israel if you skip right to Greece and the influence is important, as is Persia's. There is much more. Sterns is the text for AP World... but he gives no credit to ancient civilizations and his book, plus the whole AP World course, is extremely frustrating when you attempt to spend as much time on cultures that have no written record as those who actually did develop the institutions of modern times. Stearns already has a second edition out, the AP Edition DBQ Update and not surprisingly he would like to see Western Civ as part of World History. Read his coverage of Greece and Rome and see what you think. They were almost as important as the ball game being played by the Mayans as far as contributing something to the human narrative. Try the Rennaissance or Reformation (you get a class period to do them both because nothing really happened, apparently). I'll leave it at that for now but try a real historian."


 * **A different view**
 * "To me the issue is what he (Stearns) offers in that monograph... about situating Western Civ. in the context of World History. I don’t see why you can’t retain most of the cultural literacy stuff... while providing a more accurate context. That was the aim of the World History course we have developed.


 * When you learn Western Civ. in context, you learn that the Western World began with the fall of Rome, and that Greece and Rome were very different Mediterranean cultures from whom the West borrowed and adapted. Also, in this context, Greece and Rome are given their historical due, and not simply studied for what they passed on to the West.


 * In Western Civ. in context, you learn the role of China and the Age of Exploration in modernizing of the West. Simply put, the West was a backwater place that had no goods that advanced civilizations like China were willing to trade with. It is only after we get precious metals from the New World (the only commodity that interested the Chinese) do we get invited into the trade network, and our economic system continues to grow from there—there is an excellent book on this: Marks, the Origins of the Modern World."

**__April 11, 2011__**
In our department meeting we made some decisions about 9-10 history.
 * We will continue to teach what amounts to a two-year course in European history - basically a modern European history course to begin with the transition from pre-modern Europe to modern Europe.
 * Thus, the first unit might entail the events of the 1300's (Plague, 100 years war, etc). Also, the unit might touch on the changing feudal relationships (Magna Carta, parlements, etc.), the changing role of the Church, the development of basic markets (towns) and the modern development of the tension between faith and reason (Scientific Revolution).
 * Right now we envision six units/modules over the course of the two years. The units and descriptions come from a curriculum document developed at the Singapore American School in 2009. We expect to change the descriptions but this will serve as a rough guide for now.

__﻿__
 * __Transition to the Modern World__: This unit marks the beginning of the early modern world. The changes in European society and politics as Europe evolved from feudal societies into powerful nation-states will be analyzed. In addition, the emerging role of the individual and the rise of reason through the Renaissance and Reformation will examined.
 * __Worlds Collide__: The focus of this unit is on the non-western world. It also examines the impact of European exploration, conquest and colonization. The development of societies in Africa and the Americas will be examined. The changes brought about in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas by the arrival of Europeans will be analyzed.


 * __Revolution__: This unit focuses on the rise of liberal thought in response to the absolute monarchies in Europe and Asia. The absolutism of France, Russia, and Japan, and the rise of Constitutional Monarchy in Great Britain will be examined. The causes and results of the liberal revolutions in the United States, France, Haiti, and Latin America will be analyzed.


 * __Industrial Revolution, Imperialism and Nationalism__: This unit focuses on the growing competition between world empires. The unit examines how industrialism led to the renewal of imperialism. The unit also discusses how nations engaged in militarism and alliance building in order to protect their national interests.

__﻿__
 * __The World at War__: The causes of World War I and its impact on Europe will be analyzed, including the rise of communism in Russia. The impact of a destabilized Europe that leads to World War II will be analyzed. The unit will also examine the global, political, economic, and social impact of a world war.
 * __Globalization: Interconnected and Interdependent__: This unit focuses on global interdependence and interconnectedness. The unit will also examine the political, economic, and social changes that began with World War II and continued through the Cold War. The role of ethnic and ideological conflicts including the rise of terrorism will be analyzed. How nations have attempted to cooperate within international organizations to prevent global war will also be examined.

**__ May 2 __**
Click here for a link to a [|review of //The Origins of Political Order//] by Francis Fukuyama. It discusses the development of European political institutions in the context of world history.

**__ May 5 __**
Click here to see the lists of library resources that we compiled to help us develop the history 9-10 curriculum that we adopted.