Second Annual TAH Symposium Builds on Success of 2006 Gathering

Peter Knupfer and Kelly A. Woestman

Last spring’s first Teaching American History (TAH) Symposium, “What Hath TAH Wrought? The Impact of Teaching American History Projects on Historians and the Historical Community,” attracted over 140 attendees to the pre-conference venue in order to examine the bigger picture of this federal grant program that began in 2001. In contrast to numerous sessions at previous professional conferences, these audience-focused sessions strove to present a more thorough understanding of the impact of the TAH program on the larger historical community.

Our first goal was to redefine the historical community beyond the rigid boundaries of college- and university-level historians, to encompass everyone involved in the study and teaching of history. Most historians involved in any facet of a TAH grant have noticed that something is changing in K-12 education throughout the nation as a result of the more than $600 million in federal money spent on these programs. The TAH program presents the perfect opportunity to work together to redefine history instruction so that it does not continue to get lost in the broader amalgamation of “social studies.” We wanted to look at strategies to preserve these efforts even after funding ended. TAH funding has brought teachers of history from all levels of the American educational system into much closer contact. For instance, TAH grant funds that support teacher memberships in professional societies have boosted K-12 history educators to almost 20 percent of OAH’s membership, the largest figure in the organization’s history. More teachers are attending OAH regional and national meetings and reading its publications.

Finally, we were interested in discussing the extent to which TAH grants have changed history instruction for pre-service teachers at the universities that partner on TAH grants. This subject was not covered in the only formal national assessment of the TAH program. Have historians begun to rethink the college survey or methods courses, which frequently include large numbers of future public school teachers? Has the sudden infusion of federal dollars changed—or perhaps even spawned—the grant culture in departments traditionally not known for attracting much external funding? Has the team-based collaboration characteristic of TAH programs changed the culture of scholarly isolation at the heart of historical research in the university?

Peter Knupfer, H-Net Executive Director and participant in three TAH programs as a historian at Michigan State University, not only worked to plan the symposium but also chaired the opening and closing sessions. He opened the day’s sessions by posing a set of issues that had arisen in the aftermath of the SRI national evaluation of the TAH program (http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/ teaching/us-history/teaching-exec-sum.html). “Our central question for today concerns partnerships,” he concluded. “How has TAH affected the historical profession and how has the historical profession affected TAH?” The audience then broke into about seven groups that reported back to the general session about the major issues of interest to them. Several representatives of the staff of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement division, including Alex Stein, TAH Team Leader, were present at some point throughout the symposium and contributed to the discussions.

Our first session considered the critical evaluation of TAH grants within departments and what might happen when funding ends. Cary Wintz of Texas Southern University, a frequent reviewer of TAH grants, wondered aloud if academic historians could provide much meaningful assistance to elementary school teachers concerned more about child development than content knowledge. “Certain types of thinking come with age,” he said; “can 8, 16, or 22 year olds conceptualize or analyze similarly?” Robert Rook, chair of the department of history at Towson University, noted that TAH grants had helped to capacitate history departments and had been very beneficial to new academic historians. Nikki Mandell of the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater shared her viewpoint as a faculty member who had seen the traditional focus of an academic career transformed by her involvement in TAH grants. TAH programs highlighted the disconnect between traditional academic training and teaching on the one hand, and public school classroom teaching that must be constantly redirected to deal with outside state and federal mandates on the other.

Kelly Woestman chaired the second session on professional development for teachers. This session examined the tension between prepared curriculum programs and creating new professional development programs with the more active involvement of historians working side-by-side with teachers. In her opening remarks, Woestman pointed out that TAH grants had practically saved her institution’s masters program and infused new pedagogical strategies into graduate training. And, although student learning outcomes should improve as a result of a teacher’s participation in a TAH program, there are still questions about whether some programs rush to complete lesson plans before ensuring the development of more critical analysis and historical thinking skills among teachers who sometimes had only a few history courses before they began teaching history. Rich Loosbrock of Adams State College discussed his work taking teachers on historical field trips that are narrated by historians, rather than commercial tour companies. “As an academic historian I feel anything but academic anymore,” he admitted, pointing to the diminishing gap between academic and public school history teachers who share so many common interests and concerns. Lori Cox-Paul of the National Archives in Kansas City shared her work developing historical exhibits that assist the public in better understanding the complex record group organization of federal records. Finally, Gus Seligmann of the University of North Texas discussed his novel approach of using military history to attract the most at-risk students.

The third session took a closer look at the role of historians involved in TAH grants and asked, “Are TAH Grants Changing the Way Historians Research and Teach?” Thomas Thurston, coeditor of H-TAH and education director for the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition at Yale University, chaired this session in which Allida Black of the George Washington University discussed her work as the director and editor of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers. She pointed out that her work with fifteen TAH grants has changed the project’s direction in ways “that fundamentally put this project at risk,” because peers will not favorably review scholarly editions which are heavily influenced by the needs of teachers. Next, Kelly Schrum of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University said that she has noticed a much improved understanding of the K-12 classroom and its audience among academics, a clear result of closer collaborations. Finally, Kurt Leichtle of the University of Wisconsin-River Falls asserted that TAH grants have fundamentally changed the way he teaches by reorienting some courses toward state curriculum standards, including thinking about what teachers don’t need to know as opposed to what they need to learn. “I am no longer teaching history for myself,” he admitted.

As we developed the idea for an all-day symposium, John Dichtl suggested we invite Maris Vinovskis, a professor from the University of Michigan specializing in history, demography, and educational policy who has been a consultant to the U.S. Department of Education across several presidential administrations. Vinovskis’s keynote address presented a sweeping view of educational policy and pointed out that the federal government is currently spending more money on history education—about $250 million—than it ever has. The problem is that this funding is scattered among a vast array of programs with little knowledge of each other’s existence. With the relative decline of quantitative, social scientific historical methods, Vinovskis argued, fewer historians are capable of doing the rigorous quantitative analysis of student outcomes required in order to obtain or retain their funding. In response to a flurry of questions, Vinovskis recommended that projects tie their assessments to the Advanced Placement tests and that they test teachers as well as students.

This summary of the panels cannot convey the energy and vitality of the audience and the questions raised during and between the sessions. One vibrant thread concerned Thurston’s query, “is TAH career suicide” for academic historians? Whereas some panelists and audience members argued that the program has opened new opportunities for outreach projects and teaching for new faculty, a larger number asserted that involvement in the program does little to help junior faculty toward the traditional goal of tenure and promotion. A further examination of these important issues will continue at the Second Annual TAH Symposium to be held March 28-29, 2007 in conjunction with the OAH meeting in Minneapolis.

Peter Knupfer is Executive Director of H-Net (http://www.h-net.org) and an Associate Professor of History at Michigan State University. Kelly A. Woestman is a member of the H-Net Council and coeditor of H-TAH (http://www.h-net.org/~tah). She is a Professor of History and History Education Director at Pittsburg (KS) State University.