Hey, there! Log in / Register

Councilors propose making Latino and Asian history part of high-school curriculum

On the heels of a proposal to make black history a required part of the Boston high-school curriculum, two city councilors say student should also be given an education in Latino history.

The City Council tomorrow considers a request from councilors Felix Arroyo (at large) and Tito Jackson (Roxbury) for a hearing to consider the proposal in depth. Jackson was the co-sponsor of the black-history proposal.

At a brief hearing on the issue last month, Arroyo supported that idea, but said Latino history is equally important. In their requests for hearings on the Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander issue, the two write that Latinos make up 43% of the BPS student body and that it's important for students to know learn about the contributions Latinos and Asians and Pacific Islanders have made.

Neighborhoods: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Latino proposal0 bytes
PDF icon Asian/Pacific Island proposal0 bytes


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Adam,

I'd love to use these proposals with my students. We're looking at what motivated Achebe to write Things Fall Apart, and this story is a great local thematic connection.

Can you post a link to where we could read the proposals?

up
Voting closed 0

If you want to see the discussion on the proposal for a similar black-education curriculum a few weeks ago, go to

http://meetingrecords.cityofboston.gov/sirepub/mtg...

and scroll down on the left until you see agenda item 0560. Click on the link and the video will start.

up
Voting closed 0

here we go.. let the flood gates begin. This begins a slipper slope on curriculum. First it was black history, now its Latino, what's next? Chinese? Japanese? Cantonese? Indian? Iranian?

eventually we're going to be so PC in schools, we're going to spend so much time teaching about all other cultures and focus less on the essentials of learning.. reading, writing, and mathematics.

We wonder why BPS Schools are failing, because we spend too much time trying to be PC.

I'm all for multicultural education but where's the line? Why does it have to be race specific? I thought we've moved on from race lines in 2012? How about just having ONE class for all. OR changing the US History is taught to include all races, not just the white folks...

up
Voting closed 0

Right now, most of the books are very U.S.-centric and very white-centric. If you're not already aware, read up on how Texas is the largest purchaser of textbooks in the country, by far (it's a huge state and they use a unified curriculum), so in order for a book to get published by a major textbook publisher, it has to be approved by the Texas board of education. You can imagine how progressive and inclusive these textbooks are.

Currently, teachers ARE taught that they need to include a variety of perspectives and need to teach kids to value diversity, etc. Yet just this general guideline isn't doing enough. Go into a classroom and you'll see that most people are using mainstream (Texas-friendly) textbooks without any supplementation. Look at the pictures of "notable Americans" on the walls, the books that are read in class, etc., and tally up the people by race. It doesn't represent the kids in the school. And since not all teachers are making sure that it does, we need to specifically tell them that they need to make sure they're representing specific groups of people.

I'd add that we need to make sure they're including the contributions of people with disabilities and LGBT folks, and are making sure to mention that these folks are indeed role models from these groups. There have been plenty of studies that show that if you don't specifically mention someone's cultural background, nearly all people assume that the person is straight, white, nondisabled, Christian, etc. So then kids go to school thinking that they aren't learning about anyone like them, or that such-and-such people are weird or creepy or dumb and haven't accomplished anything. This is part of why we have so much bullying of students who are racial minorities, LGBT, and people with disabilities. And why these students do worse in school and are more likely to drop out. We need to be teaching ALL students, and we need to be teaching the students from dominant groups to appreciate the great things that minorities bring to the world instead of thinking that the world is run entirely by straight, white, Christian, nondisabled people.

Is this really that hard of a concept?

up
Voting closed 0

One of the biggest misconceptions is that the U.S. history is “white” history.

In fact I would dare say that white ethnic groups like Irish-Americans, Albanian-Americans, and Italian-Americans, which all have large populations in Boston, have been ignored by the multiculturalists in their quest to add racial histories into the curriculum.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, keep segmenting the history that is taught to kids based on race. Otherwise, how will they know that they people should be viewed differently based on the color of their skin? We certainly don't want them growing up learning that American History includes more than one color of person. Need to pass on the prejudice to the next generation or else it will die.

up
Voting closed 0

Any more than "European" is.

up
Voting closed 0

Nice snark adam, but the fact is that there are *no* genetically discernable races of humanity - just one multi-lobed continuum. I believe that was the point anon was getting at - calling out specific phenotypic or ethno-cultural groups for distinct and separate study may simply end up reinforcing unproductive preconceptions about race.

I'd like to see the focus be on creating a more inclusive historical curiculum, rather than a balkanized one. Seems to me that councilors Arroyo and Jackson are pretty blatantly pandering to what they percieve as their base.

up
Voting closed 0

I suspect a lot of people, however, don't, and don't know/care that Chinese and Philippine culture and history as as different as, say, French and Russian history. Ditto for Latinos - Guatemalans and Chileans speak the same language, more or less (just like we speak the same language, more or less, as people in London), but they have dramatically different cultures, histories, etc.

up
Voting closed 0

Approach a typical Joe/Jose/Johanna Q. Public on the street and try to get them to give you any substantial answer to the difference between French and Russian history that doesn't have the same level of simple caricature that you'd get if you asked about Chinese and Philippine, or Guatemalans and Chileans.

As I said above, instead of trying to decide which of the hundreds/thousands of distinct pheno-ethno-cultural groups are worthy of targeted and separate study, why don't we aspire to teach our children a more comprehensive and cohesive story set of humanity's share history?

up
Voting closed 0

Even if you start with the concept that you are going to teach a classroom of kids the "comprehensive and cohesive story" of humanity's shared history, you then have to break that down into digestible pieces that can be turned into classwork/homework. It would be completely unintelligible to go year by year and try to capture what every piece of humanity across the globe was doing that year. So, you regionalize the curriculum. Since culture is regional, you essentially break it down culturally and so you might want to only cover a century or two of spanish culture before catching up what England or West Africa was doing at the time, but ultimately you're going to have to split it up somehow. The end result is it makes the most sense to follow the storyline of a particular culture and try to constantly include "links" (like a wikipedia article) to what was going on in other cultures at the same time to keep everything in reference.

And how far do you think you'll get in a school year on this and at what level of detail? Too broad and it'll be meaningless. Too in-depth and you couldn't even teach the "comprehensive and cohesive" history of early Russia, let alone the entirety of humanity.

In the meantime, does the early history of Russia have as great an impact on how a MA high school student sees their world as much as say Central/South American & Caribbean history? Or African history? Probably not, since they are likely to encounter more black and hispanic kids in their life than Russians. Not that there isn't anything to learn from the rise and fall of the USSR these days, but it has less impact on their immediate lives than US-Mexican relations through the past 2 centuries.

Honestly, I wish we'd actually teach Middle Eastern history to our kids since they've only ever grown up knowing a war with places like Iraq and Afghanistan. They should be introduced to far more interactions with Muslim culture than they do now. They should understand a greater depth of understanding on the rise of Israel and why we should or shouldn't be such great allies there. We should also teach them more about Chinese culture and history too for the same reasons. We should be teaching them cultures that they are going to need to interact with as adults so they aren't sheltered into such a US-centric dogma. If we want them to be decision makers when they turn 18, they should be informed on the issues that will likely make the greatest impact on their lives.

up
Voting closed 0

That's a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions and blatant assertions of opinion as fact. Not sure I want to spend the time rising to all your straw men, but suffice it to say that the proposal you start with of history being taught as a series of mono-cultural threads with occasional supporting side threads is archaic and patently inefficient for useful understanding.

And ironically, after stating that broad histories are unteachable, by the end of your post you seem to be calling for just that. With the added appeal that we precognitively see into the future and pick the particular threads which will turn out to be most important at our children's 21st birthdays (a strategy which, had our progenitors followed it, would have our parents experts in Teutonic history and us deeply schooled in Russian. How useful that would have turned out to be)!

And btw, I think 1955 called and wants its 30 minute class periods back.

up
Voting closed 0

In a 50 minute period, you can expect to burn the first 10 minutes getting the class ready (collecting homework, passing out graded assignments, discussing results/grades) and the last 10 minutes (giving out assignments, dealing with questions). You get about 30 minutes of actual teaching time (2012, not 1955)...if it isn't interrupted with a disciplinary problem or something else.

If you can't plan 6 years down the road (teach them at age 15 what they need to know by 21 isn't exactly Nostradamus levels of prognostication), what business would you have teaching children anything to prepare them for adult life? Also, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. On my 21st birthday, it was already a brave new world, comrade. I'd hope that they would have been teaching me something about Iraq and the rest of the trouble in the Middle East (which had already shown itself to be a world issue under Bush I and was giving Clinton a headache around my 21st birthday at that point).

up
Voting closed 0

of what will be in the textbooks concerning Iraqafghanistan (yes one word)

poor kids

up
Voting closed 0

How about instead of a checklist of ethnic histories we make a component of history be a course where students first write and share a paper on origins where they research their own personal background and then follow up with a vision for the future exercise about how they see diversity/the changing demographics shaping the future of Boston? Such a project would give kids a reason to learn the histories. I'm sure there are teachers already doing this...

up
Voting closed 0

Can't we just broaden the regular history curriculum to incorporate more complete views of society at each step of the way? Having separate courses for distinct groups but then still having a "mainstream" history of the U.S. or whatever, means that "white european" will continue to be considered the normal history of the country and then there's all the little side-bars and boxed out sections for other groups.

Politicians looking for grandstanding ops is no way to create a curriculum. It should be done the way it's done nationally -- have some inbred, flat-earth rednecks in Texas dictate what our children will learn.

up
Voting closed 0

Agreed with doing away with the idea that "standard" history is white/European and the other stuff is "supplmentary."

In order for this to happen, academic departments in universities need to do away with this view. (i.e., they need to stop having "musicology" and "ethnomusicology" where "musicology" is the white European music). Part of the white European emphasis in schools comes from schools knowing that this is what colleges want students to know, so you get a dynamic where a highschooler knowing all about the American Revolution in great detail is considered to be prestigious academic knowledge, but courses covering sociological issues and learning about how different groups interact with each other are considered "electives" and "remedial" and something that "doesn't count toward college." Yet we all know which one teaches more relevant life/work/community skills.

up
Voting closed 0

Hate to break it to you but European historic, art, and culture has had a greater impact on the global than that of other ethnic groups simply because of the influence brought by empires. Knowing about the most influential stuff is kind of more important than relatively obscure material which hasn't underpinned most of the modern world.

Racism is a two way street in academia. How much influence has Bach and Beethoven had on the world compared to some obscure artist? Are you really going to not teach Bach and Beethoven in favor of the obscure person simple because they were too white for the particular person determining the curriculum?

up
Voting closed 0

Where did I say anything about not teaching Bach and Beethoven? I just said that they shouldn't be the default definition of "music."

For instance, my undergrad degree is in "music." Other people's are in "ethnic music" or "world music." I really wish mine were called "European classical music" since we did not, in fact, study any sort of broad range of that which constitutes music. But I do appreciate having the degree and think that I learned valuable things.

up
Voting closed 0

Why not make the contributions every ethnic group makes part of the school curriculum?

up
Voting closed 0

italian? polish? no one ever taught us about any of those cultures when i was in school.

my son is 4 and doesnt seem to see color or race, why point out the differences? im sure he will realize soon enough that people have different cultures but why force it down a kids throat?

up
Voting closed 0

Not kindergarten.

up
Voting closed 0

It's about making some people feel bad or guilty and boosting the self esteem or pride of others. The whole charade does nothing but create divisions, resentment and grievances where none existed in the youths. If there wasn't a constant stream of invented offenses amongst an ever growing pool of ethnic groups then the people running diversity, inclusionary, and sensitivity training would be out of jobs. If there ever was a classic example of achieving the opposite of what was intended this is it.

up
Voting closed 0

That adults in Boston haven't learned sufficiently about white privilege.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd like to know what this supposed "white privilege" is given that it seems to get thrown around a lot by racists trying to acquire special privileges for their own ethnic identity group. I guess all the honkies are supposed to shut and feel guilty for having pale skin even if they personally and their ancestry has nothing do with the exploitation or oppression of any other ethnic groups with different skin pallor.

up
Voting closed 0

If you actually want to know what white privilege is and aren't just being an asshole, read "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" or anything by Beverly Daniel Tatum.

up
Voting closed 0

Children of color are generally very aware of their own race and the race of others by about 3 and are very aware of when they're an "only" in a particular setting, when none of the characters in the picture books look like them, and when they constantly have adults saying ignorant things about their hair or their food. These kids didn't ask to have race/culture "forced down their throat" either.

Colorblindness doesn't work. You've pointed out exactly why, in your suggestion that what works for your child of the dominant race should be applied to all children. We need to provide all children with examples of people of diverse backgrounds and with respectful and empowering language to use to discuss differences and similarities.

up
Voting closed 0

In case you haven't noticed white kids are the minorities in Boston Public Schools.

Talking about 'race' (we are all HUMAN, the only race we should be referring to for piss sake!) does nothing but make people obsess about it. Pointing out differences isn't going to help children learn to treat each other the same.

up
Voting closed 0

I guess it depends on where you are, but most Massachusetts history classrooms have included 'black' or 'Latino' history for along time now. And the textbook thing hasn't been true for a long time either. Prentice Hall and Houghton Mifflin produce most of Massachusetts history textbooks, as these texts cover the macs and college boards. Actuall, the American Pageant is the national textbook of choice for AP classes.

Sometime in the 1980s the AP exams and SAT 2s started to include a lot of 'black' history ( slavery, colonialism, cilvil rights), and state history frameworks changed to reflect those changes. The American Pageant has been a staple textbook for these exams and since about 1995 has radically changed from the classic "white" history txt book to what it is today.

'Black' history isAmerican history and should ( and is included) in basically every Massachusetts classroom.

Go look at any SAT2 test and you will realize that every HS history class basically has to cover black history. White schools have been doing this for 20 years now, do we know for sure that Boston isn't? Or is this just politicians looking for something that isn't there?

The bottom line is that the national tests are going to include 'black' history on 10% of each test, so history classes should spend 10% on 'black' history.

up
Voting closed 0

Black history goes far beyond slavery, colonialism, and civil rights. Those are important issues, but you're basically saying "oh no, we teach Black history -- we cover the ways in which Black folks have inconvenienced whites and the resultant issues." A comprehensive history lesson needs to cover a lot more about Africa and a lot more about the great things that have happened in U.S. communities of color that had nothing to do with whites.

up
Voting closed 0

But those issues (slavery, colonialism and civil rights) are the most important because of the reason we are talking about this in the first place. Irish-American or German-American history isn't going to be an educational discipline because major factors like slavery/colonialism/civil rights don't involve those groups (to the same extent).

I think we agree with each other in terms of what the main goals of education should be, I just don't think you realize how much it actually goes on in most classrooms today already.

up
Voting closed 0

equivalent to teaching about how "black folks have inconvenienced whites and the resultant issues?" I'm not seeing where the "inconvenience" comes in at all. And really--what are the "great things that have happened" that aren't being taught? It's been a long time since I was in school, but I don't recall that history was taught along the "great things" model--most of it was unspeakably grim.

up
Voting closed 0

Kids pay attention to what their adults pay attention to. My daughter was pretty much the only white kid through most of her daycare/preschool experience. Her school was full of dolls and book characters that came in a rainbow.

The only time she noticed a color difference was every February when they celebrated black history month. It was the only time they ever taught ANY historical figures and they only had black ones, no asians, latinos, etc. It made her feel separate. At three she wanted to know when her month was.

up
Voting closed 0

Why is the school system in the business of teaching any groups ethnic history? Really, that each ethnic group's responsibility.

Greek Americans don't learn their history in public schools. Rather they learn it in the Greek Orthodox Church. It's more effective, and allows them to take ownership of it, versus waiting for a bureaucratic school system with other priorities to do it for them.

up
Voting closed 0

What history should be taught in schools? None?

up
Voting closed 0

where do you want to meet to pick up your fifty?

when i was a kid the nuns used to let us throw rocks at the school busses filled with black kids from the windows of my catholic school. i had friends whose fathers used to put on black masks and beat their dogs to make the dogs fear black people. the fact that my child doesnt see race is something im very happy about. i grew up in a rough time and if you werent white you werent welcome. im glad my kid wont experience shit like that. i honestly cant speak for how children of other races feel about things but im going to do my best to make sure my child never judges anyone by the color of their skin. but i guess you have a problem with that?

up
Voting closed 0

In priority order:

1) Black/African-American history
2) Mexican/Latin America/South American history
3) Chinese/Japanese/South Asian history
4) Middle Eastern (Muslim/Arab/Israel) history
5) England/UK history (including India/Australia)
6) Rest of Western European history
7) Eastern European (including Russia) history
8) Pan-African history

I would make this a separate class from US History. I would try to cover an understanding of how each region/country's past influences its mindsets today. I would require constant referencing to any interaction that culture had to US/Western European culture (slave trade, colonization, oppression, trade agreements, etc.). It would probably take 2 school years (first year required, second year elective maybe?) to cover all 8 topics appropriately enough (maybe 10th and 11th). #1, #2, and #5 all probably get more coverage than others when it comes to the other 10 years of education and other courses like US History, so that may allow for a different tactic of hitting the parts not commonly covered or skimming to allow more time for the other 5 cultures...or it may allow US History to focus on other aspects and leave those areas to this/these World History course(s).

up
Voting closed 0

White guilt much?

up
Voting closed 0

I have US History, which is predominantly Anglo-European, as a full course while each of these other cultures (not all of which are non-white) is getting somewhere between one-eighth to one-fourth of the same amount of class time.

Troll elsewhere, troll.

up
Voting closed 0

I had a post about this in the first post about this topic a few weeks ago.

The State of Massachusetts sets up frameworks for history that every school system has to follow. All of the above topics you mention are covered in good detail over a high school students career. They should all be covered in their first 1.5 years of high school. They are all in the frameworks anyway. It is up to the schools to actually teach those areas.

Basically it gets broken down like this:

Grade 9- World history from the Paleolithic period up until the French Revolution and World Colonialism. This would include African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Mesoamerican, etc, etc.

Grad 10- World history from World Colonialism to the present for half the year, and US history from exploration to about Jacksonian Democracy.

Grade 11- US history from Jacksonain Democracy to the present. This would include Slavery, civil rights, race relations, role of women, sufferage, etc.

Grade 12- Most schools have electives. Schools like Brookline High or Newton North High will have electives like African-American history or Asian American history. I'm assuming the Boston Schools don't and this is why this is coming up? I have to assume schools like Boston Latin have these electives that Brookline or Newton North would have.

up
Voting closed 0

What's the downside? The BPS is full of kids from the D.R. who would be interested to learn things about their history and culture. I'm not threatened by my kids reading a few articles about other cultures, imagine that.

up
Voting closed 0

you have to devote an equal time to the history of Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Colombia or any other country where students come from? Maybe save some time for Haiti, Morocco, Ireland, Somalia...? While I love the idea of delving more deeply into world history, the history of immigrants to the US, etc, I just don't see how this is feasible in the context of most highschool curriculums and this whole tit-for-tat attitude is a little ridiculous. I'm also finding this notion that kids in the BPS aren't learning any black history or reading picture books with only illustrations of little white children bizarre. It's been a long time since I was in school and it was pretty well incorporated into the history we learned, the fiction we read, etc.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, I'd hate to lose that valuable lesson on the Tea Pot Dome Scandal to learn about the places where most of my classmates come from. Sure, I could learn something about the populations that are changing the face of my neighborhood, but not if it means losing that mini-lesson on the 100 Years War.

Seriously, they can do both. Part of what history is about is getting students to engage with source material and use it to develop their understanding of the world. Learning about cultures that are close to their lives could be a really effective hook.

up
Voting closed 0

Because guess what? There were no Dominican signers of the Declaration of Independence. No Abolitionists of Vietnamese extraction, OK? If you want to rewrite history or focus on modern immigration or take on the truly monumental task of tackling the history of the countries of all of the immigrants in Boston, then good luck. Would I like to see a broader, more Howard Zinn-esque approach to teaching history? Sure. But this attempt to make everyone feel included on the basis of their ethnic heritage is ridiculous and IMHO, divisive. And no, I'm not of D.A.R. Stock either and people of my particular ethnic makeup did not, as a group, have much of a speaking role in American history. And let's not even address the question of women--is there any group as large whose role and contributions have been systematically ignored? Sheesh.

up
Voting closed 0

What's your point?

Your point is that certain countries have no immigration to the United States until after they were free from colonization and empirical rule? Yes...and? Do you think it was only Western Europeans here from 1776 to 1880?

What's the harm in teaching kids that the reason England declared slave trade from Africa to North America ended at the turn of the 19th century (even though the U.S. would allow slavery to continue for decades afterwards) is because the African slaves in Hispanola rose up against their owners? It might interest a young Dominican kid to learn that his family's country is where the African slave trade met its demise. He might learn that most of the Dominican-born people were killed by Columbus and European disease and that he probably has more in common with the black kid in his class than the Mexican ones.

The timeline of US History that you learned didn't happen in a bubble. There's no reason to keep teaching it as if it's a chain of important events devoid of context. US History is actually relatively brief when compared to the rest of the world...but very broad.

up
Voting closed 0

Because I certainly remember learning in great detail about the slave trade between Africa, the US, England, the Carribbean, etc. Not that I remember it all, but then I don't remember much about Tea Pot Dome either. I'm all for learning history in a broader context, but not in the way that seems to be proposed by many of the posters here as if we can just "include" everyone and somehow base a curriculum off the ethnic backgrounds of the kids in every school.

up
Voting closed 0

Why is this discussion limited only to history. Wouldn't students also be interested in learning how different ethnic groups contributed to science or math?

up
Voting closed 0

Because science and math is science and math! Ethnic identity politics have nothing to do with the universality of science and math. To understand 2+2=4 do I really need to know the entire history of addition to understand a mechanical operation?

up
Voting closed 0

You learn that in history class. Social studies actually.

up
Voting closed 0

No, one learns about the history of math and science in math and science classes.

up
Voting closed 0

Because Boston public schoolchildren have run out of things to learn, and need new topics to cover. And the teachers aren't busy enough either.

up
Voting closed 0

Why are City-Councilors meddling in educational curriculum issues? If they want to do so, they should get themselves appointed to the School Committee.

up
Voting closed 0

Because, unlike the City Council, the Boston School Committee isn't a pack of political, pandering, perfidious piss-ant pukes.... tee hee.

up
Voting closed 0