Bill Ross, Ed.D.
AIHE's Vice President of Professional Development Services

 
Media are replete with horror stories detailing a lack of historical knowledge among Americans both young and old, often centering around chronological confusions and howlers. Even CBS Late Night host David Letterman has highlighted the problem with a feature he calls “On This Day In History According To A Dumb Guy.” But I’m afraid his hypothetical “dumb guy” who mixes up historical events is a far too common reality. Our much maligned educational system usually gets the blame for such problems. Are these attacks justified?

Clearly most history courses are taught chronologically and the vast majority of our students take several history classes over their years in elementary and secondary schools. Why then this documented inability to put events in order? Are students not making enough effort to learn? Are teachers not trying hard enough to teach? Or, as I suspect, is there too much material being introduced and too few connections being made across historical time? We know that history teaching that races through the text, merely “mentioning” people, events and places, cannot contribute either to long-term retention of subject matter or to the ability to use what is retained for higher-level analysis and understanding. Obtaining added curriculum time for history instruction might help, but it is hard to do, and is even impractical in many settings. We must search instead for pedagogical ideas that would enable us to achieve the Bradley Commission’s goal of moving beyond “short-lived memorization of
acts without context” in order to “cultivate the perspective arising from a chronological view of the past down to the present day.”
The “less is more” strategy, in which the instructor stresses some topics over others so that opportunities can be created for in-depth study (using primary resources, original student research, etc.) can be helpful, but it is not a panacea for chronological ineptitude. We also need an emphasis on tying together course content across centuries and eras. Learning should be a continuum, always reinforcing earlier mastery. To this end, I propose a strategy for setting up a skeletal historical framework in each student’s mind which is continually reinforced through both well-chosen course content and an exercise I call “Bracketing.” 

Bracketing is an old artillery technique which can be adapted to the war on chronological infirmities. It consists of intentionally firing a shell beyond the target followed by a round short of the target and gradually narrowing the over and under until the target is hit. For historical instruction, this strategy teaches a list of some 30 landmark historical events and eras (which can be done in two days) in a concise, skeletal narrative of our 5,000 years of recorded history, and then takes every opportunity to connect the 30 or so items to everyday class lessons.

To further refine and practice Bracketing techniques, I especially like to have students read a “This Day In History” column, available in many major daily newspapers. It can be our tool of choice ... cheap, relevant, easily adjustable, and fun for everyone to think about.

Bracketing has served me well since I first used it in the early 1980s. With it my students develop a solid sense of chronology while enjoying the technique itself. It puts a good foundation under their historical house, and it can be adapted to classrooms at any grade level.

Let’s not let our students end up like Letterman’s hypothetical “dumb guy” who thought that in 1908 President Gerald Ford invented a car and named it the Model T in honor of “Mr. T”! This malady of the mind is preventable by early intervention and continual reinforcement. 

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could mention the year of an event and students could state both a prior and a post event, thereby zeroing in on the historical event and capturing the essence of its era? It is past time for young people to develop a better sense of history and Bracketing can help it happen.

Those who do not have CICERO should go to www.TryCicero.com for a free trial of Unit 4 — The Birth of Liberty. Contact AIHE for a WebEx tour of all units with one of our consultants. Subscriptions are available for individual teachers, students, and for school districts. Move your classroom into the 21st century. Don’t let your students be left behind.

 
AIHE proudly invites all Project Directors to the third annual Meeting of the Minds on September 11-13. Please join us and recognize your place as a national leader in professional development for history and social studies teachers.

In a continuing effort to perfect our services, we will once again host the AIHE Meeting of the Minds conference. Please note that attendance at this conference is mandatory. Funds have already been set aside in your grant budget narrative to facilitate travel for this event. It is a valuable opportunity to share information regarding the unique grant services you will experience as project directors within the next year as well as an opportunity to welcome all of our new Teaching American History grant recipients into the AIHE family. Our conference is meant to complement the U.S. Department of Education’s conference in New York City next January. Whether you are a new project director of a Liberty Fellowship or a more experienced project director, you will find something new and exciting to learn at this event. Not only will you gain greater insight into AIHE professional development resources to assist you with your grant, you will also have a chance to network with many project
 directors who are in their first, second, and third years of the Liberty Fellowship program.

The conference will be held each day at the Bridgeport Holiday Inn (www.his-bridgeport-nj.com) from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and will include a continental breakfast and complimentary lunch. Several guest speakers will appear on behalf of AIHE during the conference.

After the conference, Dr. Kevin Brady will host a reception and tour of our headquarters as well as dinner at the famous Botto’s Italian Line Restaurant in the center of historic Swedesboro. During this event, you will meet with AIHE staff, professors, master teachers, and educational specialists, as well as the other project directors attending the conference. Live entertainment will be provided by the American Stories Through Song Band, led by Mr. Steve Missal, former drummer for Ted Nugent and Billy Idol.

Following the events of the day on September 12, Dr. Brady will host a dinner reception at the Holiday Inn, Bridgeport, with additional entertainment provided by historical character actors.

Expanding upon the professional opportunities and special surprises that we have planned for you, the staff of AIHE will lead a guided tour of Philadelphia on Saturday, September 13.

We have a little something for everyone, and we sincerely hope that you will take advantage of this opportunity to participate. You won’t want to miss this multi-day conference designed specifically for new and experienced project directors.

For more information, contact our Director of Fellowship Programs, Ken Gavin, at kgavin@aihe.info or our Vice President for Human Resources and Administration, Marnie Meyer, at mmeyer@aihe.info.

The July issue of the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History features one print and one online article, and two print teaching strategies from two of the American Institute for History Education’s distinguished faculty. In an absorbing article entitled, “Some Abstract Thing Called Freedom: Civil Rights, Black Power, and the Legacy of the Black Panther Party,” Dr. Yohuru Williams, AIHE’s Vice President for History Education, explores the history and legacy of the Black Panther Party. Dr. Williams also contributed an online essay on the Black Panther Party entitled “The Black Panther Party: A Short Historiography for Teachers.” The print version of the magazine has a lesson plan using the Institute’s E.Q.U.A.L method to answer the provocative question “Was Thomas Jefferson a Black Panther?”

The magazine also features a well-designed lesson plan entitled, “From James Madison to Malcolm X: Black Power and the American Founding” by AIHE author and learning specialist Veronica Burchard. Mrs. Burchard, Director of Curriculum Development at the Bill of Rights Institute, has compiled a book on primary source documents, including a speech by Malcolm X, that will be published soon by AIHE.

Dr. Williams’ online article can be accessed at www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/bpower/williams.html

Dr. Kevin T. Brady 
President
American Institute for History Education

Standards Correlation: History Standards for Grades 5–12. United States Era 10 Contemporary United States (1968 to the present). Standard 1B. The student understands domestic politics in contemporary society. Standard 2C. The student understands changing religious diversity and its impact on American institutions and values.

As the American Institute for History Education’s Vice President for History Education, Yohuru Williams makes clear in this forum that incorporating current events into your instruction can be useful in engaging students in historical topics. The rising cost of gas is one such topic.

In the decades after the close of World War II, American oil consumption grew to accommodate three important factors. First was a significant increase in the nation’s population. Often referred to as the Baby Boom, the decade between 1950 and 1960 witnessed a population increase of 28.4 million people, the second largest population increase in American history, second only to the 1990s. Second was an increase in automobile ownership necessitated largely by the third factor, a new suburban lifestyle with many oil-dependent comforts.

Unaware of any pressing need to conserve, most Americans treated oil like a renewable resource. Automobile manufacturers rolled out larger and less energy-efficient vehicles that American consumers quickly gobbled up. Although this was sustainable while automobile ownership was still a relative luxury, by the dawn of the 1970s, most Americans owned their own cars and relied heavily on them for both work and leisure. Few could have anticipated what lay on the horizon.

In the 1970s, oil consumption rose more sharply than in previous decades. The nation discovered just how problematic this was with the onset of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors in October 1973. The United States lent support to the Israelis arousing the anger of the Arab Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). To punish the United States, OPEC imposed an oil embargo on the United States and raised the price of oil to its European allies.

Underscoring the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, the embargo created a social, economic and political crisis for the nation. Heavily reliant on automobiles not only for work but for relaxation, Americans were forced to adjust their leisure activities. Higher gas prices also forced people to adjust spending to accommodate the price at the pump. Lastly, politicians were forced to rethink their policies on the Middle East and the cost of over reliance on foreign oil.

In an effort to ease the impact of the embargo, Americans took bold steps. In a significant effort at peacetime rationing, President Richard M. Nixon called on all Americans to limit their fuel consumption and conserve gas only for essential travel. Lawmakers also requested that gas stations restrict the sale of gasoline to $10 a customer. Station owners further agreed to suspend gas sales on Sundays to ease the burden created by the embargo. In a dramatic move, Congress even authorized an extension of daylight saving time to maximize fuel use.

Despite these efforts, gas shortages led to long lines at the gas pump and even higher gasoline prices. “The basic fact is that the nation’s appetite for fuel is enormous,” concluded an article in U.S. News & World Report in February 1973. “America, with only 6 percent of the world’s population, consumes 33 percent of its energy.” 

This crisis not only drew attention to the high cost of dependence on foreign oil but also ushered in a new age of environmental awareness and reform as politicians, automobile manufacturers and the public began to explore new alternative sources for energy. Car manufacturers introduced smaller cars and introduced the concept of fuel efficiency, while scientists debated the risks and rewards of nuclear energy. The crisis also led to a campaign to reduce the speed limit that wedded gas saving with highway safety concerns. In a holdover that is still visible to students all over the United States today, lawmakers set the speed limit at 55 miles per hour. It also created one of the nation’s most visible icons, the Alaskan oil pipeline. Congress approved the construction of a trans-Alaska pipeline on November 13, 1973, in the hopes of supplying an estimated 2 million barrels of oil a day. The oil embargo was finally lifted in March 1974, but the episode forever changed the United States.

Several elements make this an ideal unit for instruction. It combines American foreign policy with domestic issues and key lifestyle changes in the United States. As Americans are feeling the pinch at the pump, teaching about the 1973 oil embargo is a great opportunity to explore the issues associated with conservation, the power of embargoes, American foreign policy, and important domestic changes that are still with us today.

Some quick adaptations:

Bring a copy of a highway sign or a picture of the Alaskan pipeline and ask your students to investigate the origins of both. After discussing their findings, talk about the 1973 Oil Embargo, and ask the students to consider how it changed America.
Consider having students collect several days’ worth of articles on gas prices today and then have them research news and magazine articles from 1973 and 1974 dealing with the gas crunch.

High School Social Studies Adaptation:

By the time the embargo ended, oil had risen to almost $12 a barrel, an increase of 330 percent. Gasoline prices also skyrocketed, rising from about 36 cents a gallon in 1970, to a whopping $1.19 a gallon by 1980. Using the concept of real dollars, consider having your students compare and contrast the current increase in fuel prices and their impact on the economy with the situation in the 1970s.

Sources:

For elementary and middle schoolteachers an excellent photo essay on the Oil Embargo can be found on the U.S. News & World Report web site at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/photography/70thanniversary/70s/oilcrisis/oilcrisis1.htm
Duffield, John. Over a Barrel: The Costs of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.
Rustow, Dankwart A. “Who Won the Yom Kippur and Oil Wars?” Foreign Policy 1974-1975 (17): 166-175. A good primer on the events leading up to the Oil Embargo and its aftermath, this is a good source for teachers looking to explore the foreign policy elements of this unit particularly with regard to U.S.-Middle East relations.
Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.

 
The Brandywine Battlefield Historic Site brings to life the largest engagement of the Revolutionary War, fought on September 11, 1777, between the Continental Army, led by General George Washington, and the British forces headed by General William Howe.

On the grounds of the park are both Washington’s Headquarters and the Gideon Gilpin House, an 18th century farmhouse later used as a tavern. Bring a picnic and enjoy the grounds as you talk about one chapter in the book we call America.
The park has a Visitor Center with a museum and a gift shop. The park is open everyday except Monday, and the professional staff offers guided tours of the historic houses on the hour. The houses are accessible to groups and individuals by guided tour only. Tours of the houses are offered on a regular basis throughout the day. Tickets are available only at the Visitor Center.  However, hours are reduced during the winter months.

Philadelphia, the capital of the newly formed nation, was the goal of British General Howe during the campaign of 1777. The British approached Philadelphia from the Chesapeake Bay, landing at Head of Elk, Maryland (present day Elkton).
As the British began their march toward the city, Washington and the people of Philadelphia were confident that the British could be stopped. Washington chose the high ground in the area of Chadds Ford to defend against the British advance. Chadds Ford allowed safe passage across the Brandywine River on the road from Baltimore to Philadelphia.
On the morning of September 9 Washington placed his troops along the Brandywine River to guard the main fords. Washington believed that he had all of the fords along the Brandywine guarded by his troops and that the closest unguarded ford was twelve miles up-river. Washington was confident that the area was secure.

The British gathered at nearby Kennett Square and formulated a plan. A portion of the British army was to march from Kennett Square as if it intended to meet Washington on the banks of the river at Chadds Ford. Meanwhile, another column of the army under Howe’s direction would march north of Buffington’s Ford, cross the river at a ford unknown to Washington, and march south into the flank of the American forces. Superior tactics and better knowledge of the area allowed the British to outwit Washington and his army.

The day of the battle began with a heavy fog that blanketed the area, providing cover for the approaching British troops. When the fog cleared, the first reports of British troop movements indicated to Washington that Howe had divided his forces. Subsequent reports both confirmed and denied this report.

In the confusion Washington persisted in the mistaken belief that the British were sending their entire force against his line at Chadds Ford. Meanwhile, Howe and the majority of his force continued their approach. By mid-afternoon the British had crossed the river at the unguarded ford to the north of Washington’s force, and they had gained a strategic position near Birmingham Friends Meeting House.

When the British appeared on the American right flank, Washington realized that he had been outmaneuvered. He ordered his army to take the high ground around Birmingham Friends Meeting House as a last defense. Unfortunately, the Americans were unable to successfully defend their position. The Americans fought valiantly, but they had been outwitted along the Brandywine.
The defeated Americans retreated to Chester. The bulk of the army arrived by midnight with the remainder trickling in until dawn. General Howe’s exhausted men camped on the battlefield and the surrounding countryside.
Although the American army was forced to retreat after the Battle of Brandywine, the defeat did not demoralize the men. They believed the defeat was not the result of poor fighting ability, but rather because of unfamiliarity with the landscape and poor reconnaissance information.

During the next several days, General Howe and his Army moved closer to Philadelphia with little opposition from Washington. Congress abandoned Philadelphia and moved first to Lancaster and then to York to escape before the British takeover. Washington responded cautiously after the battle. The impending loss of Philadelphia hurt the patriot cause, and Washington’s force had dropped from a high of about 15,000 men prior to the battle to only 6,000.
Local leaders did what they could to supply the army with food and clothing. Reinforcements sent by Congress began to arrive, and Washington felt the army was sufficiently ready to mount an attack. However, it was too late to save Philadelphia, for on September 26 a column of British soldiers marched into the patriot capital unopposed.

For more information on the Battle of Brandywine, or to schedule a visit, go to www.ushistory.org/brandywine.