Blast from the PAST!

The article by Larry Cuban dissects the ongoing argument between historians that feel history has something to offer school reformers or has nothing to add to school reform. The review captures those who believe educational reformers can use the past as instruction and those policy-driven reformers that only look ahead. Cuban points out that in some instances, the historical method can assist in: constructing a chronological narrative, documentation of alternate solutions, redefinition of current problems and solutions as dealt with in the past. Cuban places the historians on a continuum of presentists (questions anchored in the present), policy sensitive historians (ask questions anchored in the present while offering an account from the past that raises questions, without offering direction), non-policy historians(ask questions anchored in past and present, render as an account of the past without thinking about current implications to policy).

Cuban offers a dissection on the work of all three of the historical continuum approaches, to give us more background in the theory and work. Overall, he sets it up to see us a through to his conclusion, which is, Historians may be able to help school reformers. The essential question being answered here is; Can historians help school reformers? The no side would say that: “presentists history robs both policy makers and policy practitioners, informed citizens and non-specialists, of the messy dilemmas that earlier generations faced…what alternatives they considered (or ignored) and the varied factors that came into play in the decision making.” (Cuban, L. pg. 14). The yes side would say the historical accounts offer; “accounts that capture the conflicting values, varied actors, and inevitable ambiguities that make the past similar in some respects to the present, albeit in very different contexts” (Cuban, L. pg. 14).

Considering my definitions of teaching, learning, innovation, and creativity; I would say the all four of them are present in the work of all sides to a certain extent.

Innovation (according to my working definition) is the ignition to recognize and study the past, present and future to think about possibilities. I would argue the presentists may have a more difficult challenge in coming up with an original idea given the history that is available. Policy sensitive and non-policy might have a better time in seeking out innovation in a more efficient way because they are borrowing from great ideas from the past.

When I consider creativity, it is the harnessing of ideas that have come before us in other peoples’ experiences and translations. It is recognizing that things can be done differently and challenging the status quo to push ideas beyond our comfort zones. For this it could be working on newer iterations stemming from the past. It’s also about that imagination that the authors mentioned. Again, presentists may be at a disadvantage in this.

Both teaching and learning are present in all the positions in the review, albeit they may look nothing alike.

Cuban, L. (2001). Can historians help school reformers? Curriculum Inquiry, 31(4), 453–467. doi: 10.1111/1467-873X.t01-1-00207

(Review of the books The Failed Promise of the American High School 1890-1995 by D. L. Angus & J. E. Mirel, Moral Education in America: Schools and the Shaping of Character from Colonial Times to the Present by B. E. McClellan, & Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum, 1876-1946 by H. M. Kliebard)