Thomas Fulbright Sociology of Education Dr.

Rury Spring 2011

Joseph Moreau seems to think there is a problem with the way we teach history, and that problem has been around since the 1820s. In his book, Schoolbook Nation, Moreau argues that problem is not the teachers or the schools but rather the textbooks and curriculum we use. As a Social Studies teacher I have to agree with him. Based on my exposure to textbooks, from my 1795 copy of John MCullochs A Concise History of the United States from the Discovery of America till 1775 to my current classroom textbook American Anthem published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 2007, what I find most fascinating and worthwhile to teach is not what they say correctly, but what they say either incorrectly, unfairly or choose to leave out. This is what brought me to Moreau and his book. Moreaus book dissected dozens of American History textbooks to see where the problems are generated. Moreau explains that he tried to explore some of the conflicts that have swirled around history teaching and show how these battles have shaped the texts themselves. (pg 16) I have chosen not only to evaluate Moreaus success in meeting his own goals, but to tie his work on American History textbooks to their affect on student self efficacy, education as a whole and the inequality the system has and continues to produce. Albert Banduras Social Learning Theory discusses the importance of a students self efficacy in their ability to learn and perform well in school. When a textbook makes a student feel alienated, or even under siege, it makes society seem

hostile and school becomes an unfriendly environment. This does not help students build the self-efficacy required for success in school. That success may have determined whether or not they would be better equipped for overcoming difficulties and facing the challenges brought on by inequality. When reading Moreaus work about the history of textbooks it becomes evident that the content of our past, and current, textbooks are rarely based on history and history alone. Even though Moreau does not explicitly state it, it seems that there are three persistent barriers that stand between the books that are and the books that should be. Those barriers are a publishers motivation of profit, the influence of politics, and the problem of making sense of complicated issues. The three are always tied together, but can be slightly separated as I try to do. Identifying how profits impact production of textbooks may not be do difficult, but Moreau did a very good job doing so. In chapter six he states controversy sells trade books, but it dooms textbooks by making them politically costly to use. (pg 251) As a result a fact-based, conceptually vague approach was the safest (pg 39). This became extremely important after the Civil War when many states began to adopt statewide textbooks. By writing textbooks non-offensive to those selecting the books a few manufactures dominated the trade, even establishing the monopoly American Book Company in 1890. These companies became far more interested in creating textbooks which pleased the purchaser, not worked to tell the truth. For example in unspoken deals with Southern textbook committees manufacturers called the Civil War the War between the States and blacks would appear in subordinate positions in turn for

purchases. (pg 272) Moreaus examples led to exposure of inequalities towards different races, different religions and different social classes. Political matters were the most common influence on the subject matter of textbooks throughout the book; after all, as Moreau writes writing history is always political (16). This again seemed like not too difficult of a task, but Moreau does so in a way that exposed politics and views I had never been exposed to. This made his argument stronger and more appealing. Region, race, religion, class and the conservative versus liberal politics were the most visible. In the second chapter Moreau covers what I expected to be the most focused on issue- slavery and its legacy. He describes how the division between the North and South did not wither away after Appomattox. Shortly after the War two very influential political groups, the United Confederate Veterans and the Grand Army of the Republic tried to influence textbooks depiction of the Civil War. Southerners wanted to place blame for the war on Lincoln and the Abolitionists (who they wanted to appear as criminals), they wanted to glorify Southerners and their cause, and most importantly for the long term impact on social inequality they wanted blacks to be almost invisible and when they appeared to play a subservient role. One textbook Moreau cites even wanted the Reconstruction Amendments left out. Northerners wanted the books to support the Unions view of the causes of the Civil War and to expose the cruelty of the system of slavery. The most popular textbook in the South was written by the former Vice President of the C.S.A. Alexander H Stevens, and the most popular in the North was written by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who was the first Union commander of colored troops.

The Northern and Southern interpretations of the Civil War still persist, as can be seen in the Texas School Boards 2010 decision to require textbooks to treat the Confederacy with less negativity. The consequences of this political dispute have led to generations of students misunderstanding different aspects of Historical events. The success of Jim Crow, Segregation and race-based inequality can all be linked to the failure of textbooks to address race and the Civil War in a consistent and suitable way. It should also be noted here that Moreau did not go through the books to search out ones that he could pit against each other on a certain topic without further analysis. He points out how Higginson who named slavery for the cruel system it was still treated the American Indians in a very racist manner. Chapter three investigates the Politics surrounding the Parochial schools desire to establish their own schools and write their own textbooks. I have always seen this as an issue related to the freedom of religion, not an escape from the racism and violence against the Catholics due to the Nativist Movement, the Know-Nothings and the KuKlux-Klan. While most textbooks fail to mention this division they lose an even greater opportunity to point out how after the Catholic Immigrants had assimilated the Catholics texts advocated for assimilation so fervently that they bordered on xenophobia (pg 130). Although it had not been his goal to do so it would have been nice to see Moreau spend a little more time elaborating on the apparent irony of the situation where a group who had recently been the target was so quick to target others. Many more good examples of politics influence on textbooks can be found in Chapter Five. Moreau wrote of a New York committee created in 1921 to make sure history textbooks create good citizens, ones with love of law and order, respect for

authority, and reverence for American Institutions authors could not include facts that undermined that purpose on grounds of historical accuracy. (198-199). However for this essay review Chapter Fives contribution to a discussion on inequality and social change only extends to the idea that many politicians and therefore textbook manufacturers lacked the enthusiasm for material which would change the status quo. Chapter Sixs addressing of social class in textbooks may be one of the most important in relation to a discussion about inequality and social change. Moreau points out how textbooks during the 1930s moved into more progressive topics such as social class and even criticism of capitalism. The author Harold Ruggs work was especially important, he hoped that a focus on unresolved social issues would make schoolwork individually and socially relevant for students and thereby more compelling (220). Rugg focused on conflict between individuals, between governments and governed and especially between social class (230). He applied this methodology through every phase of American History from the Revolution to the current era (1930s). Unfortunately for Rugg, and all the other social progressives hoping for change, his willingness to challenge authority, identify inequality and promote critical thinking (for the sake of social change) put him on the radars of the wrong people. Seen by cooperations as someone who could sow disorder and weaken childrens commitment to free enterprise (221). The Politicians on the Dies Committee (the forerunner to the House Committee on Un-American Activities) saw him as a communist, not even the support of the NEA or the ACLU could prevent him from being banned from school districts across America next to Robin Hood who was considered pro-communist for its take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor message (254).