discussion might expose gaps in his/her information or intelligence. And they
give students a sense of fairness about grading: performance on “objective”
exams seeking recall of specific factoids is easy to measure. Thus, lists reduce
uncertainty by conveying to students exactly what they need to know.^85
Fragmenting history into unconnected “facts” also guarantees, however, that
students will not be able to relate many of these terms to their own lives and
will retain almost none of them after the six-weeks’ grading period.^86
In some ways the two inquiry textbooks in my sample are better than the
sixteen narrative textbooks. Both inquiry books, The American Adventure and
Discovering American History, suggest ways students can use primary
materials while examining them for distortions. The American Adventure
directly challenges ethnocentrism in its teachers’ guide, a topic never
mentioned in any of the other textbooks or their supplementary teaching guides.
Research suggests that the inquiry approach leads to higher student interest in
contemporary political issues.^87 However, inquiry textbooks require much
more active teaching. Classes can’t just plow through them. Teachers must
supplement them with additional information, leave out parts of the book,
choose which exercises to assign, and work in concert with their school
librarians. Perhaps it is because inquiry textbooks do not rely on rote learning
that teachers and school administrations soon abandoned them. The inquiry
approach was too much work.^88
If teachers seem locked into the traditional narrative textbooks, why don’t
teachers teach against them, at least occasionally? Again, teaching against the
book is hard. We have already noted the logistical problems of time and
workload. Resources are also a problem. Where do teachers find a point of
leverage? If a state historical museum or university is nearby, that can help. But
how do teachers know when they do not know something? How do they know
when their book is wrong or misleading? Moreover, students have been trained
to believe what they read in print. How can teachers compete with the
expertise of established authors backed by powerful publishers?
Teaching against a textbook can also be scary. Textbooks offer security.
Teachers can hide behind them when principals, parents, or students challenge
them to defend their work. Teaching against the textbook might be construed as
critical of the school system, supervisor, principal, or department head who
selected it. Teachers could get in trouble for doing that. Or so they imagine.^89