Are we already teaching 'history'?

Herbert Klibard in his article, "Why History of Education," argues that history is an integral part of producing quality educators. Teaching a historical context offers educators a foundation to use the historical context subjectively. He frames his argument, in a creative, and innovative way, "in the end, then, much of the value of studying the history of education lies not in providing us with

answers, but in daring us to challenge the questions and the assumptions that our intellectual forebears have bequeathed to us" (pg. 1). Kliebard uses this as a basis for his theory that history is a necessary component of teaching and learning. Klibard's suggestions of quality teaching and learning align closely with my own definition. He states, "theoretical training in education (pedagogie), for which history is the best vehicle, (Durkheim, 1977), should provide the capability to analyze one’s own pedagogical context with wisdom and insight, not with a shoe box full of ready-made solutions" (pg. 1). This appears to me to be a description of a situation where students are able to use a historical context to analyze their own thinking, rather than offering them the 'stand and deliver' solutions.

In terms of creativity and innovation, Klibard makes reference to these in a somewhat subtle way, through identifying the opposite of innovation and creativity in education. He states, "the most pervasive educational problem that schools face today is the rejection of school knowledge on the part of schoolchildren. Surely a good part of that problem derives from the time-honored assumption, first enunciated by the so-called scientific curriculum makers, that the knowledge that schools purvey is for a remote point in the future" (pg. 198). In contrast to my own definition of innovation where a problem or issue that needs transformation is identified, then addressed using a creative process, this suggests that the problem is identified but has not yet been addressed, or revolutionized. In addition Kllibard adds that, "history invites us to reinterpret old questions and sometimes to cast them aside in order to pave the way for new ones. At its best, history provides us with a record of our cumulative experience and suggests how that experience may be interpreted" (pg. 198). This is a definition of learning in a broad sense.

Klibard poses his own three questions throughout his article: What should be the goals that define the curriculum of schools?, What educational experiences should be provided by schools to prepare children for the adult activities that they will one day be required to perform? and How can schools meet the common and individual needs of children and youth? I would suggest that there should be a fourth question, are we currently teaching students curriculum, and skills that will not be relevant to them when they finish compulsory schooling? In essence are we already teaching 'history'?

Kliebard, H. M. (Unknown). Why history of education in teacher education? Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. Lagemann, E. C. (1989). The plural worlds of educational research. History of Education Quarterly, 29(2), 185–214.