Proposed NYS 12th Grade Curriculum Needs Fixed

Today is the last day for the public to give requested feedback on the proposed NY social studies framework.  Please read this essay and the one below for our take on what sort of feedback the state needs and then write up your comments to the state (copy and paste to comments here, if you would).  Don’t say it’s up to someone else – it’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Proposed NY Social Studies Curriculum for 12th Grade Needs Fixed

The revised draft NY State Social Studies framework still requires way too much content, as described in the article on Chalkbeat and essay by Steve Lazar.  The only place where too much content is NOT the main problem is the proposed 12th grade curriculum, for Civics and Economics.  Even though the state’s curriculum for 12th grade won’t be tested, and therefore won’t be read by most teachers, it still frames “what should be taught” and deserves a critical look.

Students should learn and practice the skills and knowledge of participants in society in 12th grade.  The current draft gets the most important aspect of state curriculum right – it doesn’t prevent a good teacher from offering a good course. Instead of the 110+ content specifications of US History (11th grade) the 12th grade curriculum requires only 59 “Key Ideas”.  That means teachers can more deeply explore important issues if allowed a year to teach Economics and Civics.

Unfortunately, the proposed 12th grade framework rarely problematizes topics. Capstone social studies courses in a republic should speak to students as co-leaders of society – it should speak to all students, not just the comfortable.

Weird Mixture of Pontificating Plus …

Instead, the current framework sometimes pontificates at us with an odd mixture of smugness and sensitivity.  The document reads as though someone with a livelier mind has gone through and tried to revise a set of 1950s-era Republican banalities but still had to compromise with a representative of the old guard. For instance; 12.E4f Differences in wealth and incomes are an inevitable consequence of free markets because individuals make different choices, but gross inequalities reflect social, economic, and/or political distortions in society. The degree to which economic inequality reflects social, political, or economic injustices versus individual choices is hotly debated. The role that the government should play in decreasing this gap is debated as well.

The “Key Idea” begins with the pompous – rich people made good decisions, poor people made bad ones – but it immediately (thankfully) contradicts itself in the next clause – big inequalities are the result of “distortions” in society.  After this contradictory pair of “factual” assertions we’re offered the best two sentence of the entire 12th grade curriculum – acknowledging a lively controversy over inequality and the role of the government in responding to inequality.

Sometimes Just Pompous

Sometimes the curriculum simply asserts banality without contradiction; 12.G3b – Citizens have certain duties and obligations to support and serve the government, including legal obligations such as obeying laws, paying taxes, serving on juries, and registering for selective service.

The government is telling students they have a duty (whether moral, religious, or legal isn’t specified) to “support and serve the government”.  The revolutionaries who created the United States said that the government was made by the people to protect our rights and that the people always have the right to alter or abolish the government – the Declaration of Independence says nothing about the people having the duty to serve or support the government.

A similar misunderstanding of the basic relationship between government and people in a republic; “12.G2b Equality before the law and due process are two fundamental values that apply to all United States citizens and legal residents.”

According to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights the right to equality applies to all men and to due process to all persons.  Who empowered the state curriculum to restrict the rights that – according to our founders – are inherent in all people?  In several places the curriculum treats rights as though the government can “extend” them or reduce them – directly contradicting a founding political principle of our nation.   And what does this “Key Idea” say to a student (one of thousands) who is neither a citizen nor a legal resident?

Which students did the curriculum writers have in mind?

The blunt assertion of non-rights of undocumented students brings up the question, “Who is this curriculum written for?”  Primarily it seems to be written for the comfortable.  The “Foundations of American Democracy” section doesn’t mention the founders’ perpetuation of slavery.  “Entrepreneurialism” gets at least 8 mentions in the Economics section – but literally not a single mention of poverty or class.  Sage advice is provided about calculating real return on investments – but there’s zilch about using government programs for the needy – a particularly terrible gap since those government programs could help New York students and their families ameliorate misery (and over 30% of NYC schoolchildren live in poverty).

Other Countries?

Speaking of children living in poverty, several times the curriculum mutters darkly about “other countries”.  But nowhere does it specify that students should compare European social democracy to our mixed-economy to a “purer” form of the much-lauded “free market”.  Odd, because these civics courses spread in the U.S. as a propaganda effort to contrast the U.S. and communist systems – as shown in the Cold War title, “The Economics of Free Enterprise in a Global Economy” (and this video).  Too bad, because considering the desired shape of our society in terms of actual examples would inspire the sort of imagination that a democracy requires in all of its future co-leaders.  And the clash of several philosophies embodied in social democracy and in “pure capitalism” overseas can also illuminate political parties’ philosophies in the U.S. that students need to understand to participate intelligently in our society.

Suggestions:

To make the 12th grade curriculum much better, with minimal editing;

  1. Replace a few of the entrepreneurial “Key Ideas” with ones addressing poverty, class mobility, and government programs for the needy.
  2. Problematize the complexity of a government “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” but founded on slavery and genocide – a clash of rhetoric and reality that (arguably) continues.
  3. Fix the confusion about rights or at least acknowledge the controversy more often.
  4. In general – acknowledge controversy as often as possible!  Don’t require millions of schoolchildren to learn anonymous authors’ political perspectives on inflation, unemployment, or due process as facts.
  5. Bring back some big ideas.  Substantiate the mutterings about “other countries” with a “Key Idea” about how the U.S. compares to other industrialized nations in government and economics.  More clearly specify a balanced consideration of the political philosophies of the major political parties.  Get the students thinking!

New Draft Still Not What Students Deserve or Own Intro Promises

By Steve Lazar, as published in Chalkbeat (formerly GothamSchools) yesterday

When the state released a draft of the high school social studies framework last year, a group of social studies teachers I’m part of responded calling for revisions that build in more room for inquiry, depth, and choice.

I feared that the new framework would, like the old one, pressure my classroom to be places where trivial memorization trumped the higher level thinking, research, and writing skills we know our students need to develop to be ready for the next phases of their lives as citizens and college students.

A new draft of a Social Studies Framework, though far from what I hoped for, makes large steps towards our demand for inquiry, small ones towards choice, and some (mostly rhetorical) nods towards depth.

Since a deep revision seems unlikely now, I instead want to highlight some of the places where the latest framework supports good teaching in my classroom and others; point towards other places where meaningful improvements are possible; and lastly, begin to think about how a revised Regents exam could allow for students to experience inquiry, depth, and choice even if the framework doesn’t change.

Moves towards inquiry and choice
Within the content specifications, there are a number of places where the new framework encourages deeper thinking by juxtaposing historical events that together complicate cartoony narratives.

For example, when the framework asks that students consider “the Irish Potato famine within the context of the British agricultural revolution and the Industrial Revolution,” it is exactly the type of counter example I present to student to complicate the dominant narrative of progress typically associated with the time period. Similarly, a pairing of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Reaganomics is one I have used in U.S. history class to not only demand higher level thinking, but also to help students understand a fundamental division in U.S. politics today.

And while there are still examples of the interpretive work of history being done for students, as was the dominant case in the previous framework, this revision does a much better job of leaving the interpretive work up to students. A statement like, “Students will examine the growth of industries under the leadership of businessmen such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and Henry Ford and analyze their business practices and organizational structures, from multiple perspectives” perfectly captures the approach I take, where it’s up to students to ultimately determine whether these people were good for the country.

All three of these examples, and similar ones throughout the framework, are likely to encourage the type of sophisticated thinking we want for our students, and required by the Common Core.

Breadth at the cost of understanding and skill development
However, the framework’s overwhelming breadth of content will stand in the way of two of its expressely stated goals: pushing students to deeply explore the material and develop the research and writing skills dictated by the Common Core and the National Council on Social Studies’s C3 framework (of which I enthusiastically approve).
That’s why we responded to the hundreds of content specifications in the original draft with a demand for choice. And there are some places in the revised framework where we feel we have been heard. For example, the framework lists a number of 20th-century social movements, including LGBT, Native American, and feminist movements, and states that “students will deeply investigate at least one of the efforts above.”

This is the type of option I give to my students, so they have the opportunity to attain a deep understanding of movements that interest them, and to practice their research skills, while still becoming familiar with others as they listen to class presentations. I would like the social studies framework to build in more of these kinds of options.
Take the example of a key idea in the ninth-grade standards, which demands that students understand that “Classical civilizations … employed a variety of methods to expand and maintain control over vast territories.”
If the primary goal is this understanding, I can get students to that point by doing two case studies, perhaps of Rome and the Mayans. However, the “conceptual understanding” tied to that “key idea” says that “Students will examine the location and relative size of classical political entities (Greece, Gupta, Han, Maurya, Maya, Qin, Rome).”

Which is more important here? Is it the key idea, which could be accomplished by in-depth case studies of two civilizations? Or will it be the conceptual understanding, which demands students be vaguely familiar with seven different civilizations? Given the number of understandings we’re supposed to make sure students reach, only a class period or two can be devoted to this one.

In my opinion, spending one period each on two civilizations is a better use of my students’ time than 11 minutes each on seven. If I were to do the latter, none of my students would remember anything about the civilizations, let alone get to the deeper understanding about maintaining control over territory.

How a revised Regents exam could help
I hope the final framework will give school communities more choice about content so students have the chance to learn material in depth. But I recognize that the committee responsible for the framework faces demands for specific content from many different stakeholders. So I want to end by considering how revising the Regents exam for global studies and U.S. history could mitigate the effects of the long lists of content the framework includes.
The current Regents exam emphasizes memorization of trivial surface knowledge in its 50 multiple-choice questions, basic reading in its document-based essay, and discussion of some knowledge in its thematic essay. None of these capture the work historians or citizens do with historical knowledge, nor do the results tell me much about whether my students have the skills needed to be successful in future endeavors.

Both the recently revised U.S. History Advanced Placement exam and the International Baccalaureate test show that choice is possible within a highly rigorous and respected course. It is my hope that the new Regents exam will take a path between these two widely respected exams, where the emphasis is on historical thinking and 21st-century reading, writing, and research skills.

By eliminating endless multiple-choice questions that prioritize students’ ability to recall facts from a vast vault of superficial knowledge, a new exam could assuage my concern about the adoption of a new curriculum that continues to make social studies a discipline where knowledge is an inch deep and a mile wide. My students deserve a social studies education that prepares them to participate insightfully in our world.

Updates – End of Summer

We kept working on the struggle for a new NY Social Studies framework over the summer – sorry for the lack of updates.  Some key events since our last writing included;

  • Met with Regent Cashin and Deputy Commissioner Slentz regarding our critiques and proposals
  • Continued work on NYC “local measures” for social studies which further sharpened our understanding of what we need, and don’t, in terms of state curriculum and assessment
  • Participated in a special meeting of AFT Social Studies in D.C. which helped us develop state and nationwide contacts and provided an opportunity to strategize with Kathy Swan (lead writer of the C3 framework) and Susan Griffin (executive director of NCSS)
  • Continued to seek a place at the table and also a voice with people already at the table in several other ways

Our key demands remain that the NY State Social Studies Framework should prioritize inquiry, depth, and choice.  We see the C3 Framework as an excellent guide to making that happen and NY as a potential national model for meaningful and powerful social studies standards. 

We hope to post more soon – including ways of other folks continuing to get involved.  In the meantime, good luck to everyone in the new school year. 

Insightful Social Studies Gaining Momentum

Lots of good things are happening.

I wrote a piece earlier this week for the Shanker Blog about larger concerns with the Common Core and is lack of attention to Civics, putting this effort in a larger context.  The Washington Post picked it up Wednesday, and Diane Ravitch just blogged about it as well.

We now have open lines of communication with multiple officials at the state level involved in the writing of the curriculum and with the power to ultimately approve it.  We have also established relationships with NYC officials, as well as with people working on larger national efforts.

We hope to have exciting news about next steps in the very near future, but in the meantime, please sign up for our Mailing List so we can communicated directly with you to organize, and so we can let people know just how many people are with us.

Social Studies for Humans

by Christina Jenkins

When I first started teaching seventh grade social studies at a middle school in New York City, I looked at the curriculum (pre-Columbus to the Civil War) and had an idea: I would paint the outline of the North American continent on a large wall in my classroom and fill it with colonies – and later, states – as we moved westward towards June. I imagined that it would be an ever-changing visual reminder of how this country came to be.

And then, first year teaching hit me hard, and that outline remained an outline long after we’d covered the Revolution, early government, and the War of 1812. By that point, several students from our homeroom class had moved away, and I think we were all trying to figure out where we were going. And then one day, Joseph drew a picture of Angela (the first student to leave us) and taped it to the wall underneath a sign reading “Wall of Memory” right about where Missouri should have been.  Joseph, more than any of us, had figured out how to use that space to tell a story.

It turns out that social studies is fundamentally about humans. It is critically important for our students to understand their Constitutional rights and the historical context for the founding and growth of this country. But, as Joseph knew intuitively and as I’ve learned over 8 years as an educator, humans come first. I now teach anthropology (truly, primarily, about humans), feminism (humans and power), cartography (how humans situate themselves in the world), design (how humans experience the world) and many other classes at a public high school where I’m privileged to teach what I feel I can teach best. I believe that my fundamental responsibility as an educator is to create learning experiences that are human-centered, and believe strongly that social studies is the “discipline” where that responsibility is most acutely felt. Whether we are teachers of geography or global history or anthropology, we must be empowered to raise and struggle with these questions about what makes us who we are.

Christina Jenkins teaches social studies at the NYC iSchool.

Time to Get it Right

by David Sherrin

For the first time, I feel some empathy for politicians who vote “no” to a bill even if it might be slightly better than the current law. The momentum to change is hard to come by and once the right moment passes it can take decades to revisit a policy. So, when the time is now for an important educational policy decision we need to make sure to get it right.

The proposed draft of the state social studies standards is slightly better than what we have today. At least it mentions crucial skills of the common core.

But nearly anything would be an improvement over the present New York state social studies curriculum, which is one of the most disastrous pieces of educational policy I have encountered. Here’s the situation: nearly all New York State students are required to pass the 9-10 Global History Regents Exam in order to graduate high school. Let me repeat and clarify: they need to pass an exam covering two years’ worth of highly specific and often obscure material when they have barely reached sixteen years of age.

I am currently completing my second master’s degree and I’ve never had to take a test covering more than a year’s worth of content.   Yet we expect teenagers, in June of 10th grade, to recall the nuances of Hammurabi’s Code (which they probably learned in October of 9th grade) or the origins of the Cyrillic alphabet.  Do we really want to prevent students from graduating because they could not remember an insignificant fact about the Gupta Empire that they learned two years prior to the test? I don’t know what the Regents exam under the new framework would look like, but if it takes the place of this catastrophe it probably could not be worse. Probably.

This is the fascinating conundrum about global history: it is essential to our students’ educational experience in a diverse and interconnected world but there are few areas of content that are absolutely essential to cover, which should take automatic preference over others. It matters little whether the students focus on European conquest and colonialism in Mexico or Peru, yet the state always favors the latter on the exam. Our students need to learn about the Cold War, but the teacher should decide whether the emphasis is on the Berlin Wall, Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or another of the countless microcosms of the larger conflict.

I’m not a knee-jerk progressive educator who automatically sits the students in groups for every activity. Sometimes I even do a lecture or two. So, to be honest, though there are countless ideas swirling through my mind for great American history theme-based classes, I will probably continue to opt for a more traditional chronological approach albeit with an emphasis on certain events and people that my students and I find compelling.

American history has a relatively doable time frame to cover and there is a comprehensible narrative that emerges by marching through time. A simple inquiry question, such as whether America has lived up to its founding values, can carry the entire course.

This traditional approach just can’t work in global history. Thus, in addition, to altering or dumping this draft framework, the Regents also needs to revisit their proposal to revamp the global history exam to cover one year’s worth of content. I’ve been lucky enough to teach with three courageous principals who unequivocally put their students’ learning above frustrating state policy. That is not the case in most places, where instead administrators push educators to teach to the test in order to boost scores, statistics, and their schools’ places in our city’s hierarchy.

Until the state explicitly pivots to a deeper theme-based approach in global history, most teachers will not have the freedom I enjoy to make learning “pop” in the classroom. This is why I value and back Insightful Social Studies’ support for the “freedom for school communities to choose from a menu of paths and emphases to best serve their students.” Otherwise, we will continue to suffer from the Regents’ current banquet approach, in which every society and event gets heaped on the same plate, boiled tasteless.  And those endless spoonfuls of subsistence farming, cave paintings at Ajanta, and city-states in 14th century Venice only lead, frankly, to an overwhelming and discomforting sense of intellectual indigestion, especially for a growing teenager.

What the New Curriculum Would Do to My Economics Class

by Michael Perlberg

For the past three years, I’ve had the privilege to teach the capstone social studies course at the Bushwick School for Social Justice.  This course looks at government and economics through a social justice lens and prepares students to be productive citizens, critical thinkers, and successful college students.

The introduction of the Common Core excited me. I finally had a framework to organize my course around. I was able to develop rigorous performance assessments around key college readiness standards, and was able to track my students’ performance and develop interventions when they struggled and enrichment when they met the standards more quickly then I expected. I designed units that culminated in authentic research based tasks that answered relevant and engaging questions. The students responded with excitement, engagement and work at levels far above what their Regents scores indicated they were capable of.

I expected that the New York State standards would follow suit by melding big historical questions with the Common Core reading and writing standards.  Instead we have been presented with an exhaustive list of bland standards with the Common Core pasted on top of them.

Let me discuss how this will play out in my current course, Economics.  Continue reading

How a Meaningful History Class Could Look

by David Sherrin

In my previous piece, I described my dismay at the approach of the Social Studies Framework and my hopes that we move toward a more rigorous and authentic practice involving inquiry and questioning. But is this high-level work doable in high school? My ten years of experience teaching in public and private schools in New York City, working with both some of the brightest and most struggling students, has shown me that it is possible and feasible. The key ingredients are to provide talented and motivated teachers with the tools of inquiry and the freedom to strive for excellence. This is what my principal, Kate Burch, envisioned at Harvest Collegiate when she told her teachers to go out and create their “dream” courses. The result, as I have seen from colleagues and experienced myself, is more often than not the cultivation of impassioned discussion, curious students, rigorous thought, and core skill-building.

The two dream classes that I developed are called “Heroes and Villains” and “Sports, Fashion, and Politics.” In each, I sought to frame the class with topics (personal stories, sports, clothing) that are compelling to teenagers, especially those who are often frustrated and unmotivated when placed in traditional academic settings. But my goal was to do so in a rich, authentic way that resulted in real learning and the cultivation of strong historical thinking, reading, and writing skills.

“Heroes and Villains,” for example, uses in-depth study of fascinating individuals in history, such as Hernan Cortes, Martin Luther, and Galileo, as lenses to explore the agency people hold in the world and the larger historical transformations like the exploration of the Americas, the Protestant Reformation, and the Scientific Revolution. Students read acclaimed biographies, compare competing primary sources, and simulate historical trials. “Sports, Fashion, and Politics” utilizes topics like cricket in India, soccer in Africa, the cultural diffusion of Victorian fashion, the role of Gandhi’s spinning wheel, the 1980 Olympic boycott and the “miracle” of the United States’ hockey victory against the Soviet Union to explore the meaning of colonialism and the Cold War. Each of these classes also includes a full research paper.

These courses cannot address the wide breadth of content required by the NYS framework because they search for depth, understanding and substance over a smorgasbord of forgettable superficial facts. They are also unique courses that would never be created or agreed upon by consensus even among a group of progressive educators.

Amazing things happen whenever strong teachers are given the opportunity to create and explore.

I am certainly not alone. All across the city, impassioned teachers are developing meaningful thematic courses, from the thought-provoking Genocide and Human Rights class at Facing History School to American Foreign Policy at Urban Assembly.  The caveat, of course, is that not every teacher is a star. Most, though, are perfectly capable of creating something valuable if allowed to pursue their areas of expertise and passion. More importantly, I think most of us are willing to endure a few subpar classes in order to have others that are inspiring. A unified social studies framework that requires certain core “facts” in global history to be drilled is destined to kill ingenuity in favor of dull rote memorization. It reminds me a bit of shopping for a mattress for my soon-to-be child and realizing that all children, by law, are exposed to harmful chemical fire retardants in order to possibly protect a few from a rare blaze.

Here’s the reality: these courses take time. A real unit takes about three to four weeks to unfold with another week or so to assess, especially if a meaningful project is incorporated. Students need time to process, repeat, discuss, and inquire about any complex historical event. As a result, six full content units over the course of the year are ideal in addition to a full research paper. The topics that the NYS framework requires are interesting and important; but they are not necessarily more valuable than others that are omitted and the main problem is that there is simply too much content jumbled up in the mix. Their product in 10th grade, for example, includes ten units jam-packed with ideas that require considerable time to unpack in a meaningful way with teenagers. One unit includes the study of World War I, nationalism, fascism, the Great Depression, World War II, and post-war alliances. This is too much, it is destructive to real learning, and it is simply unacceptable.

In the same way that I hope that the state will not require our students to learn history in the rote way that we did, I do not want to force other teachers to take a thematic approach if the traditional route works in their classroom. I don’t look down upon the contributors to the standards or dismiss their knowledge and skills. I just would not have accepted their task knowing what the outcome would be. I wish that those who value authentic historical education will create a curriculum with built-in flexibility in content in order to allow an emphasis on core skills.

David Sherrin is a Social Studies teacher and department coordinator at Harvest Collegiate. He has ten years of experience teaching in New York City schools. His passion is to engage all students in learning about the complexities of the past and in participating in deep historical, ethical, and historiographical debates, often through the use of role-playing and the analysis of key primary and secondary sources. 

Ten Commandments vs Proposed NYS Social Studies Standards

The proposed New York State Social Studies Framework reminds me of the Ten Commandments. First, they’re both orders from an unelected rule-maker with the possibility of punishment for dissenters. Second, they both use the listing format. Third, neither has any question marks – just command after command.

But I’m exaggerating – in many ways the new social studies standards don’t resemble the Commandments at all.

G-d personally dictated his, the NYS Education Department didn’t name the guilty parties. HE managed to make a top ten list, the US history framework includes 14 “Enduring Understandings” and 107 “Conceptual Understandings”. Each of G-d’s items could easily be taught in one lesson each, but how many periods would be required to teach, “Despite broad ideals of liberty and equality found in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution included compromises and omissions that would challenge the nation for generations to come, especially in terms of political equity”?

Perhaps the most important difference might be that G-d’s draft immediately got put on stone tablets and teachers started interpreting them to the masses. Whereas, thankfully, the State Education Department has requested feedback, so hopefully we can convince them to throw out this draft and work towards a framework that would support, rather than impede, student learning.

New Curriculum Squashes Debate

by David Sherrin

The creators of the New York State Common Core 9-12 Social Studies Framework fulfilled a task that I never would have wished for myself. At my former school, I once participated in an endeavor to develop a common 9-10 social studies curriculum. After a week of debate amongst a half-dozen like-minded progressive educators, we emerged with a bland, somewhat insipid program that appeared suspiciously similar to the traditional Global History and Geography course. It was the only option that could achieve any level of consensus. It became a solid, if somewhat forgettable, set of units and lessons that appeased all but fully pleased and inspired no one.

The men and women who drafted the state-wide social studies framework faced an even more daunting obstacle: developing a core curriculum that could meet the needs of every teacher and student from Brooklyn to Plattsburgh. I am sure that the participants are smart, dedicated, and hopeful individuals who aspired to make a lasting contribution to education. The first thirty pages, which deal with skills and the incorporation of the Common Core, are thoughtful, productive, and extremely relevant.

The problem from the start, though, is that their mission was self-destructive, like winding through a labyrinth with no possible exit. This became the case as soon as they delved into content. The reason is simple: creating a unified curriculum with a core knowledge in world history that every student must know, and every teacher must teach, betrays the very foundations of inquiry, curiosity, and depth that lies at the heart of historical thinking. The goal of any historian, we must realize, is not to learn what everyone else knows but rather to acquire new and specific knowledge that can make a real contribution to our collective memory of the past.

Here are two examples of what I mean. The curriculum takes areas of historical doubt and debate (which historians call historiography) and turns them into undisputed fact. This seems to happen most often in the murky realm of “cause and effect.” In the unit on the Silk Road, which would include the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan, one key understanding from the framework is that “greater economic power increased political and military power, which enabled the expansion of empires.” But the Mongols were really nomadic horsemen who conquered lands of vastly greater economic strength. Historical thinking would ask students to question that cause-effect relationship.

Likewise, in the unit on absolutism, the framers ask students to know that “the increased wealth generated by Atlantic trade networks enabled European monarchs to consolidate power leading to the rise of absolutist governments.” A strong teacher would push teenagers to question the cause-effect relationship since some absolute monarchies existed before Atlantic trade networks and some took hold in places like Prussia and Russia, where there were no Atlantic networks. The students might even inquire as to whether “absolutism” is a valid historical concept given the strong Cortes (assembly) in Philip II’s Spain and the Parliament in England under Henry VIII.

In my next piece, I will articulate an alternative vision for what a global history course could look like.

David Sherrin is a Social Studies teacher and department coordinator at Harvest Collegiate. He has ten years of experience teaching in New York City schools. His passion is to engage all students in learning about the complexities of the past and in participating in deep historical, ethical, and historiographical debates, often through the use of role-playing and the analysis of key primary and secondary sources.