,3 
 
 .3^ 
 
 A * i 
 
TS it in the interest of history in schools 
 -■- that a fuller definition of the history 
 requirement be made by the American 
 Historical Association showing the 
 especial points to be emphasized and 
 those to be more lightly treated ? 
 
 A DISCUSSION 
 
 J. Ft; SUTTON 
 
 It 
 
 Vice-Principal of the Oakland, California, 
 High School 
 
^^^ 
 
 ^ ^'^ 
 
>J> 
 
 
nuiniiuiiuiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiniiiiimiiniiiiiiiiN 
 
 OAPER read by Mr. J. R. Sutton, 
 Vice -Principal of the Oakland High 
 School, Oakland, California, before the 
 Panama-Pacific Historical Congress (Ameri- 
 can Historical Association, American Asiatic 
 Association, and Asiatic Institute), at the Uni- 
 versity of California, Berkeley, July 22, 1915. 
 
 niiimniiiiimiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiii^ 
 
By tranter 51 
 The White House, 
 
 Published by 
 
 Allyn and Bacon 
 
 Boston New York Chicago 
 
Topic for consideration: 
 
 ** TS it in the interest of history in schools that a fuller 
 -^ definition of the history requirement be made by the 
 American Historical Association, showing the especial points 
 to be emphasized and those to be more lightly treated? " 
 
 At the risk of seeming ultra conservative, I ven- 
 
 Report of the twxQ to answer this question in the negative. 
 Committee _ . ,o-- , ^ , . 
 
 of Seven Previous to loVV there was no approach to uni- 
 
 formity in the history courses given in our sec- 
 ondary schools. Furthermore, the schools that gave a four years* 
 course in history were exceedingly few. But in that year the 
 Committee of Seven made its famous report, and schools at once 
 began to model their history courses after the committee's 
 scheme. The result is that now, sixteen years later, there is a 
 fair degree of uniformity in the history work of the secondary 
 schools of the United States, and a four years* course is the rule 
 
 rather than the exception. In 1911, the Commit- 
 ^^® . tee of Five made the tentative suggestion that Eng- 
 
 of Five lish and mediaeval European history be combined 
 
 in the second year with emphasis on English his- 
 tory, and that the third year be devoted to modem history. 
 Little attention has been paid to this suggestion, and thus today 
 the four-year history courses in our secondary schools are based 
 on the recommendations of the Committee of Seven. 
 . -^ Now, why should a new committee be appointed to 
 
 Recommen- send out to the history teachers of the nation a 
 
 dations j^g^ recommendation relative to the content of his- 
 
 Advisable ? i • i i 
 
 tory courses? Such a recommendation would not 
 
 make for greater uniformity. On the other hand it would tend 
 
 to destroy such uniformity as now exists; for some schools would 
 
follow the new recommendation, while others would abide by the 
 old plan. The desire for a new committee and a new report 
 grows out of dissatisfaction with certain features of the course 
 as mapped out by the Committee of Seven. The changes advo- 
 cated may be summed up in three statements: 
 
 1. That the course in history should cover three 
 X^® instead of four years, English history as a separate 
 Proposed course being discontinued. 
 
 2. TTiat the point of division between the first and 
 the second year's work be moved along from the year 814 to 
 1600 or 1700 A. D. 
 
 3. That American colonial history be disposed of during the 
 second year as a part of European history, leaving the third year 
 for American history and government since 1 760. 
 
 It is true that English history as a separate 
 Losing Ground course is losing ground; not because English his- 
 tory lacks inherent value, but because so many 
 other subjects — business courses, industrial courses, current 
 English, current history, economics, etc. — have come into the 
 curriculum to compete for the pupils' time. This competition is 
 especially keen in the case of English history, because the ma- 
 jority of this wide range of electives are open, as in English his- 
 tory, only to third or fourth-year pupils. But there are still 
 some of our pupils, especially in the large schools, who want 
 English history. I can think of no good reason why they should 
 not have it. Of course it cannot be made obligatory, but neither 
 can ancient or European history. Any attempt on the part of 
 history teachers to make any of the history courses, other than 
 American history and government, obligatory, is certain to meet 
 with failure, on account of the new courses that have been recently 
 admitted and of others that are knocking for admission. If by 
 surrendering English history we could have a three years' course, 
 required of all for graduation, the proposition would seem more 
 attractive; but to surrender it without any compensation, when 
 some pupils want it, seems uncalled for. 
 
 6 
 
The one feature of the course outlined by the 
 Point Between Committee of Seven which is meeting with the 
 First and most persistent criticism in certain quarters is 
 
 ^Qj.^ the division point — the year 8 1 4 A. D. — between 
 
 the first and the second year's work. It is 
 
 proposed to move this point of division to the middle of the 
 
 seventeenth or the beginning of the eighteenth century in 
 
 order to gain more time for modern history. The proposition 
 
 is so important, and to my mind so serious, that it should 
 
 be considered with the utmost care and discussed with the 
 
 utmost frankness. I admit the desirability of having more 
 
 time for modern history, but considering the matter from all 
 
 points of view, I prefer to retain the year 814 as the end of 
 
 the first year's course. 
 
 In the first place, I assume that the first year's 
 
 The Course in work is to be taken by first-year, or ninth- 
 
 Ancient History , ., » i , i i i i i 
 
 Must Be Adapted grade, pupils. As 1 have already stated, 1 do 
 
 to the Ninth j^q^. believe that ancient history or European 
 
 history can ever be required for graduation — 
 at least in our large city schools. These subjects must remain 
 optional and must compete with other subjects. It would, there- 
 fore, be a serious thing for high school history not to begin with 
 the ninth year. If left to the second year, after the interests of 
 pupils have been established along other lines, the number of 
 those electing history will be greatly diminished. The whole mat- 
 ter, therefore, reduces itself to the proposition of giving to pupils 
 of the ninth grade a course in history from the earliest beginnings 
 down to 1600 or 1700 A. D. 
 
 I do not need to dwell here upon the capabilities 
 tions of the ' °^ boys and girls of fourteen and fifteen years of 
 Ninth Grader age. They are enthusiastic, willing to work, 
 
 eager to learn. But their mental horizon is very 
 limited; their understanding of human affairs is confined almost 
 within the bounds of their own meager experience; their power 
 to think logically is just beginning to dawn; and their ability to 
 
concentrate their minds upon any subject is so undeveloped that 
 it is very difficult for them, by their own unaided efforts, to arrive 
 at a clear understanding of the meaning of an ordinary para- 
 graph in any of our text-books of history. The course as out- 
 lined by the Committee of Seven for the first year extends, in 
 point of time, from the earliest beginnings — about 5000 B. C. — 
 to the year 814 A. D. To appreciate the passage of that im- 
 mense stretch of time requires the maturity of an adult, the 
 mental training of a university graduate, and the imagination of 
 a poet. But something can be done with boys and girls of four- 
 teen and fifteen if they are not required to hurry. By carefully 
 selecting the parts that are to be emphasized and the parts that 
 are to be more lightly treated, the ground to 814 A. D. can be 
 covered in the first year with some degree of satisfaction. If, 
 however, the whole mediaeval period of history were to be added 
 to the year's work, I firmly believe that the result, from an edu- 
 cational point of view, would be disastrous, — disastrous because 
 it would put so much into the course that the whole purpose of 
 the year's work would be defeated. 
 
 I believe that we will all agree that our business 
 The Danger jg jjQt go much to teach history as to educate 
 
 Too Much boys and girls. We use history as a valuable 
 
 instrument in the process. If we make the in- 
 strument too cumbersome, we fail. We can't teach a five-year- 
 old boy to mow grass with a scythe. A first-year pupil, who 
 should be driven over a course in history extending to the end 
 of the mediaeval period, would emerge from the year's work 
 with his head buzzing with vague notions. He would have 
 gained no definite information as to the subject-matter thus 
 bolted, would have acquired no vital interest in history, would 
 have formed no careful habits of study. In fact, the year's work 
 would not further the process of his education in the slightest 
 degree, for the hop-skip-and-jump method of disposing of huge 
 masses of material can result in nothing but foggy ideas and 
 slovenly habits — and these have no educative value. 
 
 8 
 
Those who advocate the inclusion of the mediaeval 
 
 As to the period in the first year's work expect to be able to 
 Selection of , ,,,.,. . , . . 
 
 Material cover the ground by eliminating many items which 
 
 are now regarded as of some importance; and we 
 hear a good many depreciatory remarks about burdening our 
 pupils' minds with such matters of detail as the reign of Rameses 
 III, the ambitions of Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus the Great, the 
 reforms of Solon, the conquests of Alexander, or the love affairs 
 of Cleopatra or Henry VIII. Whatever one may think of this 
 or that item as a topic appropriate for consideration in a sec- 
 ondary history course, the fact remains that Egypt, Babylonia, 
 Assyria, Persia, the various Greek cities, Macedonia, and Rome, 
 each had a continuous story, which takes its place as a part of 
 the larger story of the ancient world. Here are certain facts, 
 certain events leading to certain results, certain theories put into 
 practice, certain great movements, rivalries, alliances, tragedies, 
 advances toward righteousness, all blending together into a won- 
 derful story. Men dispute as to many of the details, but not 
 as to the main drift of the story. Any course in ancient history 
 that does not make clear, insist upon, and take time to develop 
 this main drift cannot be very effective in furthering the process 
 of education. 
 
 The mind acquires power when by a deter- 
 Must Make Clear mined effort it incorporates any logically 
 
 the Main Drift arranged body of knowledge; but when it is 
 
 of the Story , , . . , 
 
 merely exposed to a great mass or material 
 
 and is then hurried on to another mass without time to analyze, 
 
 to arrange, to compare, to meditate, it acquires no strength from 
 
 the experience, for it simply refuses to act. If one is dissatisfied 
 
 with the selection of material found in the various textbooks of 
 
 ancient history, let him make his own selection; but let him 
 
 remember that his selection must make clear the main drift of 
 
 the story of the ancient world. That is independent of him and 
 
 he cannot change it. Another thing which he must keep in 
 
 mind is the immaturity of ninth-grade boys and girls. Still 
 
emother fact is that education is a slow and steady growth, and 
 that there is no royal road to it. Time must be allowed for 
 these young people not only to comprehend the passage of sev- 
 enty centuries, which in itself is a stupendous conception, but 
 also to learn many names and facts — for there will be many 
 names and facts no matter what the selection of material may 
 be — , and to arrange them into a complete whole. 
 
 ^ , The proposition of adding the mediaeval 
 
 Reasons for • i i r > i i 
 
 Adding Mediaeval period to the hrst year s work seems to be 
 
 Period to First based upon two assumptions: first, that the 
 
 ancient and mediaeval periods of history are 
 of little, if of any importance, and are therefore to be disposed 
 of as quickly and as painlessly as possible; and second, that 
 modern history is Per se both more interesting and more valu- 
 able than the story of the earlier periods. I do not wholly accept 
 either of these assumptions. Since our business is to educate 
 young boys and girls, we should teach no period of history simply 
 to be rid of it, but should use each period as a valuable instru- 
 ment in our work. That ancient or mediaeval history can 
 thus be used, there can be no question. As far as the element of 
 interest is concerned — and it is an element of tremendous im- 
 portance — any phase of history is as interesting to a class as 
 the teacher is able to make it. Some teachers can arouse more 
 interest in the struggle between the Egyptians and the Hitlites 
 than others can arouse in the French Revolution or the Ameri- 
 can Civil War. Interest in historic events does not depend so 
 much upon their location in point of time as upon how they 
 are used to make great national or international crises, with 
 their accompanying human emotions, sympathies, and passions, 
 live again. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the history of the 
 
 Danger of an eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in that they 
 Unscholarly . ,. , , 111 i- 1 1 
 
 Attitude immediately precede and lead up directly to the 
 
 present, possesses a certain kind of importance 
 
 that no former period has. But I firmly believe that the pupil 
 
 10 
 
who takes the two years* course with the year 814 as the divid- 
 ing point will at the end of the course more deeply comprehend 
 the modern period than the pupil who devotes his entire second 
 year to the last two centuries after having skimmed lightly over 
 the whole preceding stretch of centuries. The reason is that 
 the one will come to a study of the eighteenth and nineteenth 
 centuries with a fair understanding of the history of the preced- 
 ing centuries, together with the mental power that comes from 
 acquiring that understanding; while the other will come to the 
 modern period with vague notions concerning earlier times and 
 the unscholarly attitude which inevitably accompanies the acquisi- 
 tion of vague notions. 
 
 ^ . . I am unwilling to admit that modern history 
 
 Bearing of . , 111 1 
 
 Ancient History is at every point more valuable to us than 
 
 upon Present ancient or mediaeval history. Knowledge of 
 
 Day Problems , , • 1 1 1 1 1 • 
 
 the past may be said to be valuable m pro- 
 portion as it helps us rightly to understand the present — al- 
 though this of course is not the sole element of value. Ancient 
 and mediaeval history abounds in lessons that greatly illuminate 
 the problems of the present and of the recent past. The prob- 
 lem of political union or separation, as settled in different ways 
 by the Greeks and by the Romans, with such far-reaching results, 
 helps us to understand that same problem as applied to our own 
 country. The controversy in Athens over the question of build- 
 ing a strong navy, the way it was decided, and the final outcome, 
 would doubtless be of value to us in our present controversy over 
 the same question. Rome's "Monroe Doctrine" over Sicily and 
 later over the rest of the Mediterranean world, and its final 
 results, might give us some hint as to the importance of our 
 own Monroe Doctrine. If the American people had had the 
 patience to learn what ancient and mediaeval history has to 
 teach respecting slavery and its final disappearance, our great 
 Civil War might have been avoided. Our colonial system is in 
 large measure based upon that of Rome. Rome has much to 
 teach us, too, respecting the struggle between the classes that 
 
 11 
 
enjoy special privileges and those that do not. I do not ques- 
 tion that modern history has much hght to throw upon the 
 present day problems — and that is its unique 
 
 Unique Advantage advantage—, but the advice that comes to 
 of Ancient and . , i- i • 
 
 Mediaeval History us from ancient and mediaeval times has 
 
 one marked advantage over what comes to 
 
 us from the last two centuries: it is final. It comes with a period, 
 
 not with a question mark at the end of it; for sufficient time has 
 
 elapsed to register the final results of politics, rivalries, social 
 
 forces, and other elements that made up the life of those early 
 
 times. 
 
 To my mind one of the most serious objections 
 
 v.. 'f *^*'°^* ^** to carrying the first year's work beyond the year 
 Slighting oi^ • 1 f 1 1 1 -1 I- 1 
 
 Roman History ol4 is the fact that such a plan necessarily slights 
 
 the history of Rome. The Roman Empire is the 
 central point in the history of the world; for the attainments, 
 the advances toward civilization, of all previous peoples, are 
 appropriated by Rome and passed on to succeeding generations. 
 From Rome as a starting-point, therefore, the history of the 
 modern world begins, so that to the student of history all roads 
 lead to Rome figuratively, as they once did actually. It follows 
 that any course in European history that does not take time to 
 impress upon the minds of the pupils the tremendous significance 
 of Rome is fundamentally wrong. 
 
 The nature of the period immediately follow- 
 Death of Charle- jj^g ^j^g death of Charlemagne furnishes another 
 magne a Logical i . • • i i- • • i r • 
 
 Dividing Line objection to including it in the hrst year s 
 
 work. Down to the fifth century the civilized 
 world had for many generations lived a settled, comparatively 
 peaceful life. Then come three centuries of confusion and dis- 
 order caused by the German and the Mohammedan invasions. 
 In the eighth century the Franks under the Carolingians bring 
 order out of chaos. A class of young people following the pro- 
 gress of events feel that with Charlemagne they have once more 
 reached solid ground, for again there is unity and comparative 
 
 12 
 
peace. Here it seems to me is the logical place to end the first 
 
 year's work, for on beyond is another long period of confusion 
 
 and disorder, unquestionably the most difficult period in the 
 
 world's history to understand. 
 
 And now after all this argument relative to the 
 
 The Real Pur- subject-matter of the first and second-year 
 pose in Teach- ... . , . 
 
 ing History courses m history, permit me to state that in 
 
 my opinion the acquirement of any given sub- 
 ject-matter by the pupil is not the sole end or aim of the course. 
 Whether pupils spend a half-year or an entire year on the mod- 
 ern period, or any other period of history, the information which 
 they acquire will speedily be forgotten. So true is this that if 
 we teach history solely for the purpose of making it stick in the 
 memory of the pupil, we all fail. Our real purpose is to give our 
 pupils a deeper sympathy for humanity, and a broader vision 
 of life; to give them a surer grasp of present day social, economic, 
 and political problems; to develop in them the power to search 
 intelligently for the truth relative to delicate and complicated 
 human affairs, and to be able to distinguish between truth and 
 near-truth; and finally to help them acquire such moral strength 
 as will come from contemplating the successes and failures of 
 men in the past — for the causes of these successes drive home 
 with unanswerable logic the truth of that great moral law that 
 "whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." If our 
 work is well done, these things will abide though the facts of 
 history fade from the mind. Thus the proposition that ancient 
 and mediaeval history be slighted in order to increase the time 
 devoted to modern history on the theory that the facts of the 
 more recent period are. Per se, more useful to the student than 
 those of former periods, is not valid, for the facts of any period, 
 no matter how well learned, will soon be forgotten. 
 
 The suggestion that the colonial period of American history 
 be taken care of as a part of the preceding course in modern 
 history would doubtless meet with universal approval if mod- 
 ern history could be made a requirement for graduation. I do 
 
 13 
 
not believe that this can be done, and therefore I cannot see how 
 
 the proposition can be entertained. 
 
 -T _ ., , Finally, for the reasons which I have tried to 
 
 No Radical *' , , , 
 
 Change in make clear, 1 do not believe that any radical 
 
 History Course change in the history course as outlined by the 
 
 > / Committee of Seven is advisable. Individual 
 
 school systems should be encouraged to try such modifications 
 
 of the course as seem wise to them. For example, I am strongly 
 
 in favor of giving a year and a half to American history and 
 
 government. Those who feel so inclined may profitably try the 
 
 experiment of adding the mediaeval period to the first year's 
 
 work, or of making any other change that appeals to them. But 
 
 I feel that a report of a national committee as to a revised course 
 
 would be of little value until such experiments have led to some 
 
 conclusions that are fairly definite and rather widely accepted. 
 
 To my mind a far more important question than that 
 
 A More pf revising the course of study in history is the question 
 Important , i i i i • • i 
 
 Problem of how best to use the subject-matter contained 
 
 in the course. The question of what should be the 
 content of each year's work, I feel has been answered satisfac- 
 torily by the Committee of Seven, but it seems to me the problem 
 of aims and methods has not received sufficient attention. I 
 believe, therefore, that the American Historical Association would 
 render a useful service to the teaching of history in secondary 
 schools if they should appoint a committee which, accepting the 
 courses as outlined by the Committee of Seven, should make 
 detailed suggestions as to the aims and purposes of each year's 
 work, and as to the methods to be used to attain those ends. 
 Many teachers still proceed upon the assumption that the only 
 purpose of any given day's work is to see that their pupils absorb 
 the facts recorded on certain pages of the text-book. 
 
 Beyond this, what should they do? There is no time to 
 enter into a discussion of this question now, but a definite de- 
 tailed answer to it by a committee in which all history teachers 
 could have confidence would constitute a report of first importance. 
 
 14 
 
\ 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 018 461 639 7 ^