(Just a quick note…I wrote this in November of 2021 for my Medium account, which I have now closed. I’m posting it again here…because…well…I like this piece. It’s kinda long and a little wonkish at times, but not much has changed in the past year. I did make one update about halfway through.)
A few months ago a friend of mine gave me a copy of the article “Against Economics” ($) by David Graeber from The New York Review. Written in 2019 (my friend was a bit behind on his reading), the article is a review of the book Money and Government by Robert Skidelsky. In the article, Mr. Graeber discusses the issue of the lag between what is happening in the economic world versus what is being taught in schools. My take: it’s not just in economics, though that is a great example. This is a problem across the board, especially in social studies courses. After nearly twenty years of teaching high school social studies, I’ve come to realize that keeping up with current trends in our respective academic fields is increasingly difficult. The field of economic thought changes relatively quickly, and it can be difficult for teachers to keep up. The nice thing about US History is that the events don’t change…but the interpretations do. Add to that the increased political nature of the curriculum that teachers use in the classroom, it’s confusing to keep track of what we in the profession should/shouldn’t/can/can’t teach.
Keeping Up With The Fed
With both of the subjects I teach (Economics and US History), the changes that take place in academic circles take a while to work their way into the classroom. What Mr. Graeber was writing about in “Against Economics” had to do mostly with how monetary policy is taught in classrooms versus how it works in real life. In theory, the two should be the same. In practice…not so much. The Federal Reserve addressed this issue in September with a call for economics teachers to adjust how we teach monetary policy. If only it was that easy.
(I’m about to get slightly wonkish. If you’re not interested in monetary policy, you can skip the next paragraph. It’s okay…I’ll never know.)
Most state standards and College Board (for AP Macroeconomics) still teach that the Fed primarily uses bond purchase (or sales) to adjust the amount of reserves that banks have on hand. This, in turn, will make it easier (or more difficult) for banks to issue new loans (or not) which would then increase (or decrease) the money supply and cause the Federal Funds Rate, and hence, all other interest rates, to decrease (or increase). Using this method for monetary policy, the money multiplier can be used to determine how much money can be created (or destroyed) from the Fed’s bond purchase (or sale). And this was all true until 2008. During the Great Recession, The Fed began paying interest on the reserves that commercial banks held at the Fed. This gave banks an incentive to keep their reserves in their accounts at the Federal Reserve, and it gave the Fed a new way to conduct monetary policy. Since the banks were already keeping quite a bit of money in reserve anyway, there was no need to worry about what the reserve requirement was. Instead, the Federal Reserve could raise or lower the interest paid on reserves to get banks to raise or lower interest rates for consumers and businesses. This has worked so well that last year the Federal Reserve set the required reserve ratio to 0%, effectively eliminating the idea of the money multiplier, and the banks still have plenty of money in reserves.
(I’m done with the wonkish part. You can pick up here if you were skipping that.)
Changes like this take a while to make their way into high school textbooks and curriculum. Unless teachers, who are often overworked and underpaid, keep up with ALL of the current trends in the academic (or real) world, chances are, they are teaching at least a little outdated material. I taught AP Macroeconomics for eight of the past nine years. (I’m currently taking a break from the subject.) College Board still has the outdated monetary policy options as part of the curriculum and on the AP Exam. (They still test the Phillips Curve too, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising.) So even if an AP Macro teacher wanted to teach current monetary policy, she would be doing her students a disservice by doing so. The kids wouldn’t do well on that portion of the AP Exam. Of course, when I first started teaching AP Macro, the textbook we were using still showed budget surpluses from the early 2000s and projected them lasting into the foreseeable future. Oops.
(Update: College Board did, in fact, update the AP Macroeconomics curriculum starting this year. That’s a good thing…I think.)
History Curriculum Under Attack
Between the changing subject matter and the typically large gap of time between textbook adoptions, it’s difficult to keep up with the current trends. Add to that the political pressures facing some social studies courses (and teachers), and the problem gets worse.
In Texas (where I live and teach), US History in particular has come under the microscope multiple times over the past decade. In 2010, the State Board of Education had some fairly heated debates about what should and should not be taught in Texas classrooms. Nearly all of the debate was political in nature, and quite a bit of the history was borderline revisionist. There was an attempt to vindicate Joseph McCarthy by implying that he may have been justified in calling people communist with no evidence. The word “imperialism” was removed and “expansionism” put in its place. Even though the two words basically mean the same thing, expansionism doesn’t have as negative a connotation. And on and on. You can read the changes here.
In 2015, College Board updated the curriculum for AP US History that led multiple (mostly conservative) groups to condemn the new standards. There was an attempt in Oklahoma to outlaw AP US History. The “controversy” had to do with the way College Board worded much of the content. Calling Reagan’s rhetoric during the Cold War “bellicose” was one of the most remarked on portions. There was so much pressure placed on College Board that later in the year, they released a revision of the revision that reworded much of the curriculum without actually changing anything about what teachers should teach. Now, the content outline says that “Reagan asserted US opposition to communism through speeches, diplomatic efforts, limited military interventions, and a buildup of nuclear and conventional weapons.” It’s wordier but gets the same point across.
In September of this year, the Texas Legislature became one of several states to pass laws banning Critical Race Theory…which isn’t taught in high schools anyway. The law just showed how little legislators in Texas and elsewhere know about what actually goes on in history classrooms. That said, the way the law is worded is a bit concerning. From a CNN article:
The law states that social studies teachers can’t “require” or include in their courses, the concept that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex” or the concept that “an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
It also notes that “a teacher may not be compelled to discuss a particular current event or widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs.” Teachers, according to the bill, can’t require or give extra credit for a student’s political activism.
The law also says that students shouldn’t be made to feel uncomfortable by what they are learning in class. If the history you’re learning doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable from time to time, it’s probably not history. (I think someone else said this more eloquently, but I couldn’t find the quote to attribute it.) I still get a little uncomfortable about some portions of US History while I’m teaching it, and I’ve been teaching the course for sixteen years.
That said, I haven’t changed anything about how I teach AP US History this year, and I don’t plan to. There is no need. My goals for AP US History are to 1) help students do well on the AP Exam in May, 2) ensure my students leave with a better understanding of how our history is connected over time, 3) help my students be knowledgeable, informed citizens who can make good decisions. These are the same goals that I have for myself every year. If I can do any ONE of those things, I call it a win.
So Where Do We Go From Here?
When looking at all of the issues here with just the two subjects that I teach, it can be overwhelming at times…but only if I let it. Expand that out across all subjects taught in schools, and there is bound to be outdated material being taught. I grew up learning that Pluto was a planet and a brontosaurus was a dinosaur…until it wasn’t…and now it is again…maybe. Things change, and that’s okay. We’ll adapt sooner or later. It’s the learning part of school that is important.
We, teachers, are trained professionals. We’re going to make mistakes from time to time, and as the curriculum changes, we may be a little behind the curve, but overall, we should be trusted to do the right thing. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Blight wrote on this topic recently, encouraging parents, politicians, and community members to trust teachers. I couldn’t agree more.
Reflections Of A Middle Aged Nobody 