Thank you, Natalie, for highlighting my piece and raising more issues. I completely agree that my proposed "trip to the main office" should only be the start of a more robust unit on governance. I didn't venture into what that might be both because I'm striving to keep my posts brief, but also because I notice that as soon as we start being specific about content, things get political. I see someone has already commented that Ancient Greece might not be appropriate until 2nd grade, and you replied that students at one school had learned about Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt in 1st. Others might point out the Eurocentric nature of at least two of those and ask why not look at groups in pre-Columbian American societies or in Asia or sub-Saharan Africa.
The larger point, which I think you share, is that children in kindergarten through 2nd grade are curious and interested and would likely enjoy learning about any of those topics--all of which will help them later as they learn about government in the United States. A thoughtful curriculum will build on whichever ancient group is studied. It would also use and introduce vocabulary that could be used in other contexts.
I totally get wanting to keep posts brief! I feel like I spend more time cutting my posts (or trying to) than writing them. But sometimes, as in this case, I just give up.
Hello Lauren, I hope that you didn't draw the conclusion that somehow my concern about doing Ancient Society too early was based on a political question. I am not an Early Years specialist, but have to teach children as young as three. Some of my colleagues who are specialists warn about touching on topics that are outside the learners' own realm of experience, while others do topics like Ancient Egypt with their four-year-olds, for instance. That's one thing. However, my connection with all of you is that, whatever the project theme, my colleagues and I agree that we should weave in the work we do with language(s).
Hi, Anita. No, I didn’t draw that conclusion at all. And I’m not an early years specialist either, other than with my own 2 kids (now adults). I’m interested in the observation of your colleagues who voice concern about touching on topics outside learners’ own experience. That is a point worth thinking about it. It seems to me that there is probably a balance between going too far outside that experience and never venturing beyond it. The whole point of education, of course, is to learn about the world beyond us. At least eventually. But we should give careful consideration to what topics we introduce and at what ages.
Thank you, Lauren. I agree: we start from where they are and we take them farther, opening up their world. Many of my colleagues and I are so grateful that we have had to work with younger children because we see how learners grow and how their worlds expand.
I wish more teachers knew about it and used it. I think it's hands down the best framework for teaching history. The book is excellent and this podcast discussion from about a year ago is also a great introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXbSDwVPZqk
I am heartened to learn about the 4-Question Method. It seems particularly pertinent to education at the middle school and high school levels. It seems much needed in higher education as well. If more people engaged in such thoughtful inquiry about issues and positions they espouse there would be more useful dialogue and a lot less self-righteous posturing (although perhaps fewer opportunities to monetize outrage) on social media. Thank you, Natalie for your always sensible and informative writing.
It's certainly more nuanced than his tweet, and I think what he's saying isn't all that different from what I wrote (and maybe not all that different from what you wrote). I've updated my post with a link to Buck's piece on the website of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where it was also published.
"In a democracy, we all need to care if public schools present certain ideas as “the truth” when many others in the country as a whole would dispute them." Is the fact that others in the country would dispute an idea *really* the right metric here? Consider applying this metric to evolution, for example. Despite a significant population of creationists that do not believe in evolution, I would argue it is appropriate for a science teacher to teach evolution as a scientific fact - as "the truth" if you want to use that term. (A science teacher could consider mentioning that some religions hold that a divine being literally created all of life and some of those faiths contend that evolution is not real, but I think that teacher would also need to clarify that within the realm of science, evolution is a fact and not under debate. I would not expect a science teacher to devote significant classroom time to exploring the ideas of creationism.) Does this metric only apply to ideas in the humanities and not in STEM subjects?
I don't know about saying this metric doesn't apply to STEM subjects across the board, but I agree it's not the right one for creationism vs. evolution. In fact, in a previous post I argued AGAINST state funding of schools that teach creationism, using the very same argument -- i.e., that in a democracy, we need to care about what all kids are learning in public schools.
I was reviewing a book by Ashley Berner that argues for a pluralistic approach to public education, noting with apparent approval that other countries do fund schools that teach creationism--the Netherlands funds 36 of them. Here's what I wrote:
Berner makes a distinction between indoctrination, which occurs “when one set of claims about the world is presented to the exclusion of others,” and exposure. Exposure to ideas that families disagree with can be uncomfortable even in a pluralist system, she acknowledges, but “it feels particularly threatening to parents who have no exit from their given school.”
That may be true, but I have to wonder how a creationist school would “expose” its students to the concept of evolution. I imagine it would be taught as a theory that has little or no basis in evidence rather than (at the very least) a plausible alternative explanation. Students might be able to recite the basics of the theory for an exam, but I suspect many Americans would still have qualms about funding such instruction.
One problem is that—as Berner acknowledges—education isn’t just about what we want for our own children. It’s about the citizenry our schools are collectively creating.
Thank you for this timely, thought-provoking piece. What interests me, as someone working in a country (Spain) with 3-5-year-olds already at school, is this question: at which age is a specific topic age-appropriate and therefore relevant? For example, teachers notice a big difference between First and Second Grade, so Ancient Greece may be great for the latter, but not the former. I am also interested in how a foreign language can ride the coattails of the first languages (we have bilingual autonomous regions) in terms of self-expression and literacy. Some of us here are trying to adapt what is proposed in your articles to a plurilingual setting.
Actually, I think Ancient Greece could work just fine in first grade! In fact, the kids I wrote about who were learning about Ancient Greece in second grade had learned about Ancient Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia in first grade. All of those topics are part of the CKLA curriculum.
As Jerome Bruner wrote, back in 1960, "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development." In Norway, preschoolers are introduced to historical topics in an age-appropriate way, and apparently it works out great.
As for first languages and "foreign languages" (which is, for some reason. a term that has gone out of fashion in the US), I'm not an expert in that area. But I have taught ESL to adults, and I've read some about the topic, and I think it's clear that if students have knowledge and vocabulary relating to a topic in their first language, it's going to be easier for them to learn about that topic in another language. So building knowledge is crucial for literacy, and learning in general, in a plurilingual setting.
Thank you, Natalie, for responding. I really enjoy hearing possible alternatives to the views we hold and seeing both slides. Indeed, it's wonderful looking at all kinds of sources: Early Years, Soc Sci and Language(s). Perhaps collaboration is the key. If my colleagues as Early Years and first language experts work with me as the English Languages specialist, we can design child-friendly projects and integrate the language development work. It's so exciting to think about how what you propose in one context can be applied to another. Thank you again. Watch this space in Spain and Portugal. Many of us are in agreement with what you propose, but we need time to think about how to do it and act on this. 😊
Thank you, Natalie, for highlighting my piece and raising more issues. I completely agree that my proposed "trip to the main office" should only be the start of a more robust unit on governance. I didn't venture into what that might be both because I'm striving to keep my posts brief, but also because I notice that as soon as we start being specific about content, things get political. I see someone has already commented that Ancient Greece might not be appropriate until 2nd grade, and you replied that students at one school had learned about Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt in 1st. Others might point out the Eurocentric nature of at least two of those and ask why not look at groups in pre-Columbian American societies or in Asia or sub-Saharan Africa.
The larger point, which I think you share, is that children in kindergarten through 2nd grade are curious and interested and would likely enjoy learning about any of those topics--all of which will help them later as they learn about government in the United States. A thoughtful curriculum will build on whichever ancient group is studied. It would also use and introduce vocabulary that could be used in other contexts.
I totally get wanting to keep posts brief! I feel like I spend more time cutting my posts (or trying to) than writing them. But sometimes, as in this case, I just give up.
Hello Lauren, I hope that you didn't draw the conclusion that somehow my concern about doing Ancient Society too early was based on a political question. I am not an Early Years specialist, but have to teach children as young as three. Some of my colleagues who are specialists warn about touching on topics that are outside the learners' own realm of experience, while others do topics like Ancient Egypt with their four-year-olds, for instance. That's one thing. However, my connection with all of you is that, whatever the project theme, my colleagues and I agree that we should weave in the work we do with language(s).
Hi, Anita. No, I didn’t draw that conclusion at all. And I’m not an early years specialist either, other than with my own 2 kids (now adults). I’m interested in the observation of your colleagues who voice concern about touching on topics outside learners’ own experience. That is a point worth thinking about it. It seems to me that there is probably a balance between going too far outside that experience and never venturing beyond it. The whole point of education, of course, is to learn about the world beyond us. At least eventually. But we should give careful consideration to what topics we introduce and at what ages.
Thank you, Lauren. I agree: we start from where they are and we take them farther, opening up their world. Many of my colleagues and I are so grateful that we have had to work with younger children because we see how learners grow and how their worlds expand.
I’ve never heard of the 4-Question Method and I’m excited to try it with my fifth-graders. Thank you for sharing!
I wish more teachers knew about it and used it. I think it's hands down the best framework for teaching history. The book is excellent and this podcast discussion from about a year ago is also a great introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXbSDwVPZqk
https://civiceducator.org/cspans-classroom-deliberations/
An article explaining CSpan’s Classroom Deliberations website. Love it!!
All of this is so sensible. Thank you.
I am heartened to learn about the 4-Question Method. It seems particularly pertinent to education at the middle school and high school levels. It seems much needed in higher education as well. If more people engaged in such thoughtful inquiry about issues and positions they espouse there would be more useful dialogue and a lot less self-righteous posturing (although perhaps fewer opportunities to monetize outrage) on social media. Thank you, Natalie for your always sensible and informative writing.
I see that Daniel Buck has replied to us in this piece https://thehill.com/opinion/4952795-teacher-bias-election-coverage/. Curious what you think about it?
It's certainly more nuanced than his tweet, and I think what he's saying isn't all that different from what I wrote (and maybe not all that different from what you wrote). I've updated my post with a link to Buck's piece on the website of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, where it was also published.
"In a democracy, we all need to care if public schools present certain ideas as “the truth” when many others in the country as a whole would dispute them." Is the fact that others in the country would dispute an idea *really* the right metric here? Consider applying this metric to evolution, for example. Despite a significant population of creationists that do not believe in evolution, I would argue it is appropriate for a science teacher to teach evolution as a scientific fact - as "the truth" if you want to use that term. (A science teacher could consider mentioning that some religions hold that a divine being literally created all of life and some of those faiths contend that evolution is not real, but I think that teacher would also need to clarify that within the realm of science, evolution is a fact and not under debate. I would not expect a science teacher to devote significant classroom time to exploring the ideas of creationism.) Does this metric only apply to ideas in the humanities and not in STEM subjects?
I don't know about saying this metric doesn't apply to STEM subjects across the board, but I agree it's not the right one for creationism vs. evolution. In fact, in a previous post I argued AGAINST state funding of schools that teach creationism, using the very same argument -- i.e., that in a democracy, we need to care about what all kids are learning in public schools.
I was reviewing a book by Ashley Berner that argues for a pluralistic approach to public education, noting with apparent approval that other countries do fund schools that teach creationism--the Netherlands funds 36 of them. Here's what I wrote:
Berner makes a distinction between indoctrination, which occurs “when one set of claims about the world is presented to the exclusion of others,” and exposure. Exposure to ideas that families disagree with can be uncomfortable even in a pluralist system, she acknowledges, but “it feels particularly threatening to parents who have no exit from their given school.”
That may be true, but I have to wonder how a creationist school would “expose” its students to the concept of evolution. I imagine it would be taught as a theory that has little or no basis in evidence rather than (at the very least) a plausible alternative explanation. Students might be able to recite the basics of the theory for an exam, but I suspect many Americans would still have qualms about funding such instruction.
One problem is that—as Berner acknowledges—education isn’t just about what we want for our own children. It’s about the citizenry our schools are collectively creating.
Thank you for this timely, thought-provoking piece. What interests me, as someone working in a country (Spain) with 3-5-year-olds already at school, is this question: at which age is a specific topic age-appropriate and therefore relevant? For example, teachers notice a big difference between First and Second Grade, so Ancient Greece may be great for the latter, but not the former. I am also interested in how a foreign language can ride the coattails of the first languages (we have bilingual autonomous regions) in terms of self-expression and literacy. Some of us here are trying to adapt what is proposed in your articles to a plurilingual setting.
Actually, I think Ancient Greece could work just fine in first grade! In fact, the kids I wrote about who were learning about Ancient Greece in second grade had learned about Ancient Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia in first grade. All of those topics are part of the CKLA curriculum.
As Jerome Bruner wrote, back in 1960, "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development." In Norway, preschoolers are introduced to historical topics in an age-appropriate way, and apparently it works out great.
As for first languages and "foreign languages" (which is, for some reason. a term that has gone out of fashion in the US), I'm not an expert in that area. But I have taught ESL to adults, and I've read some about the topic, and I think it's clear that if students have knowledge and vocabulary relating to a topic in their first language, it's going to be easier for them to learn about that topic in another language. So building knowledge is crucial for literacy, and learning in general, in a plurilingual setting.
Thank you, Natalie, for responding. I really enjoy hearing possible alternatives to the views we hold and seeing both slides. Indeed, it's wonderful looking at all kinds of sources: Early Years, Soc Sci and Language(s). Perhaps collaboration is the key. If my colleagues as Early Years and first language experts work with me as the English Languages specialist, we can design child-friendly projects and integrate the language development work. It's so exciting to think about how what you propose in one context can be applied to another. Thank you again. Watch this space in Spain and Portugal. Many of us are in agreement with what you propose, but we need time to think about how to do it and act on this. 😊