Exhibition for what purpose?

Both research evidence and our own experiences in schools, then, suggest that the drawbacks of requiring students to display historical information to hold schools accountable are likely to outweigh the potential advantages. There is little evidence that such testing increases students’ experience with reasoned judgment, expanded views of humanity, or deliberations over the common good.  In fact, there is evidence that in some cases, such features of humanistic education are being pushed further from the curriculum than ever and are being replaced with practices that expose students to a narrow range of content, taught in an ineffective manner.  Far from contributing to participatory democracy, exhibition for the purpose of accountability may be undermining the potential benefit of history education for democratic citizenship.

Barton, K. and Levskit, L.  Teaching History for the Common Good (2004), p.117-8.

I was amused to read how Barton and Levstik approached the “exhibition stance” chapter of this book with their noses pinched and their heads turned.  They were reluctant to write the chapter on the most problematic of the stances – the exhibition of historical knowledge, either for its own sake, for the glorification of the exhibitor, or for the rote regurgitation of facts on a standardized test.  I was pleased that they eventually found a few bright spots to focus on – exhibition in service to others, the potential for meaningful and holistic testing.  I also reflected on their commentary about the role of museums and the power of exhibition to shape  narrative and interpretation for others (especially in light of our recent trip to the Smithsonian, and the reservations of our docent about the authoritative nature of many of the curator's placards).  But in writing this week, I feel like I have to comment on the initial thrust of the chapter. 

The excerpt above sums up both my earlier suspicions and now, my experience with teaching in a test-focused environment. Yes, there are potential advantages to holding schools accountable for a (somewhat) standardized curriculum.  My own 8^th grade Language Arts experience was an exercise in futility – a “creative free-spirit” teacher who felt that the traditional curriculum (say, grammar and writing) was too limiting, and that we should instead have lots of experiences to discuss and journal about.  We spent lots of time outside or doing aerobics in the classroom (she was an instructor…hey, it was the 80’s).  We did not spend much time, however, exhibiting any actual mastery of new skills, nor learning the mechanics of writing.  As a result, many of our classmates entered high school with some serious gaps in our preparation.

The idea of standards, and of students being held accountable for demonstrating mastery of certain skills, does not bother me at all.  But when the Essential Skills and Questions of History that could form the basis of a standard curriculum get taken over by page after page of “Essential Knowledge” (i.e. discrete facts), then we see the scenario that Barton and Levstik describe: “a narrow range of content, taught in an ineffective manner.”   Conducting meaningful inquiry-based activities or holding challenging discussions where students debate real issues takes time, and also requires that the students have access to rich content to build knowledge and understanding of historical events -- all prerequisites for exhibiting mastery.  That’s hard to do if you’re pressured to cover all of WWI in two class periods, so that you can cover the Depression and New Deal the following week.  I have a million ideas for meaningful activities and ways to engage the students authentically with the content…but the cost of that is a very hit-or-miss coverage of the breadth of the “facts” they will expected to know. Which is a greater service – or disservice – to my students? 

I’m trying to straddle a middle ground now, picking and choosing what I emphasize and trying to develop meaningful activities that reinforce the key facts while encouraging the students to question and think for themselves.  Those are the real skills that I want them to take from my classroom and exhibit in the world.  Frankly, I could care less whether they remember that Sam Gompers founded the AFL and Terence Powderly the Knights of Labor.  I’d much rather they understand the big picture of why labor unions developed and why they had such a hard time gaining traction, and then consider where the boundaries should be between protest and violence, or what the government’s role should be in regulating the market.  I want them to speak out, from a reasoned perspective, and feel that they are equipped to participate.  I just wish that their end-of-year tests could measure that.