Debating History for the Classroom :...

San Diego’s school textbook battle continues. Headlines give prominence to critics’ claims that the proposed social studies series is “racist.” The controversy isn’t going to get much clearer, however, until everyone--the school board, teachers, administrators, critics and public--understand some key issues.

Let’s start with the nature of history. Its function is not primarily to catalogue people and events, but instead to use them to illuminate themes and issues so as to better understand the past and find lessons to guide us in the present.

Textbooks cannot be fruitfully evaluated by the number of “mentions” of this or that individual or group. They are not encyclopedias, although some critics seem to be operating on that assumption. No one should expect a comprehensive treatment of every subject. Instead, one should find insightful descriptions and analyses of a broad range of key themes and topics.

I reviewed two of the new texts, one for fifth-graders and one for eighth-graders, with two motivations. My sons are in elementary school, and I hope the dull and dated texts now used will be replaced by books more likely to broaden their knowledge and stimulate their thinking.

Second, I have a Ph.D. with a specialty in African-American history and have taught that subject for 14 years at San Diego State University. So my professional curiosity was piqued.

The two books I’ve seen are light years beyond what is currently in use. It’s easy to see why many classroom teachers applaud them and urge their adoption. Unfortunately, too much debate has been monopolized by the ideological arguments of critics. The school board should certainly consider estimates of the texts’ pedagogical strengths and weaknesses offered by professors of education. But historians are best equipped to evaluate the actual content.

Contrary to quoted critics, the volumes do not reflect a conservative political philosophy, nor do they promote an uncritical glorification of America. Neither are they racist. In fact, the texts reflect much of the scholarship written by black, white, Asian, Latino and American-Indian historians in the last two decades. This is what the textbook process should ideally accomplish: the insights of original scholarship by academic historians synthesized in texts so that the general public can learn from them.

The new texts’ several discussions of slavery, for example, provide useful background on African civilizations and show the evolution of slavery in America in terms of culture, social practice and law. Descriptions of day-to-day life reflect the slaves’ point of view. Personal observations by the slaves themselves are liberally quoted. The key topic of how they survived their travail receives good discussion. All of this is illustrated with eye-catching graphics. If these volumes have a fault, it is not ethnocentrism, but instead passionless prose. These texts rightly condemn slavery, for example, but the effect of multiple editors is a lack of fervency. Black authors would have suffered the same fate.

This criticism notwithstanding, there seems to be pretty wide agreement by public school teachers that these new books focus on developing “critical thinking” skills, offer a good foundation for citizenship and present America’s multicultural past in rich array.

The school board would be wise to give the judgment of historians more credence than the ideological agendas of critics outside the profession. A number of respected colleagues from the ethnic studies and history departments at SDSU have testified to the books’ strengths. Each of us can find a factual error here or quarrel with an interpretation there; no textbook will ever be perfect. But the new series is clearly a superior product.

San Diego’s schools have the opportunity to pilot test these materials, without cost. Let’s allow our teachers to give them a thorough workout.