Who’s Afraid of Anne Frank?

January 29th, 2010

It’s ironic (or maybe just sad) that in this, the week when we remember the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and Dachau, today’s Washington Post included a story about how the Culpeper County, Virginia public schools decided to stop assigning the full version of The Diary of Anne Frank because “a parent complained that the book includes sexually explicit material and homosexual themes.” Children in the Culpeper schools will still be able to read an older, and presumably less-offensive-to-one-parent version of the book, but the full text of the book is now out of their history curriculum.

We could spend all day wringing our hands at the very idea that we’ve reached the stage where a public school district will change its curriculum because one parent objects to one assignment. But that’s a debate for other blogs.

Instead, I have to ask why it is that our children must be protected from the reality of the past?

Anne Frank’s story is well-known to almost everyone who grew up in the United States in the past several decades, because her Diary has been a standard assignment for students in the late middle or early high school years since at least the early 1970s. Hers is a story that is sad, glorious, poignant, raw, difficult, and in the end, tragic. But it’s not like the Holocaust was a happy story. And yet, in the midst of the mayhem of the period from 1933-1945, a young girl’s voice has spoken to generation after generation of school children because hers is an authentic voice, not one made up by writers in Hollywood or anywhere else. It is the reality of Anne Frank as a person–a teenager much like them except for the fact that she’s trapped in an attic and dies in a concentration camp–that speaks to young people.

And I’ve got news for the concerned parents of Culpeper County–your children are already having sex, so it’s not like the fact that Anne Frank mentions her vagina is going to result in a general moral decline among youth in the county. I make this statement not just based on the common sense assumption that teenagers are having sex in America, but based on data. According to the Virginia Division of Health Statistics, the number of teenage pregnancies in Culpeper County rose 20% from 2002 to 2008. Because the unedited version of Anne Frank’s Diary only recently made it into the curriculum–and then only for a short time–we can hardly blame Ms. Frank for the rapidly rising teen pregnancy rate in the county.

As I write this post my children are 10 and 13 and so of the age when they are confronting the bad side of humanity and the bad side of our past. My oldest has a close friend who can’t play outside because his neighborhood is too dangerous. My youngest has had to work his way through the sudden and unexplained death of a teammate’s mother last spring. They know life is hard and they know that humans can be cruel and capricious one day and loving and predictable the next.

Editing historical sources to sanitize them in ways that won’t offend one person or another does our children a grave disservice. As much as we’d like to keep them safe from the realities of life, they see through our attempts much more easily than we’d like to admit. Instead of hiding the reality of Anne Frank from them, we should teach them the reality, even the parts that might make us uncomfortable. How else are they going to learn?

New Resources for Diplomatic History

January 21st, 2010

The Office of the Historian of the State Department of the United States has recently updated their website to make it much more user friendly. For the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon-Ford administrations, one can now search through the documents of the Foreign Relations of the United States series either through a search box, a map, or a thematic interface. Previously scanned documents from prior administrations are in the process of being migrated to the new site and links to scans of the pre-1945 administrations held at other libraries are easily searched for on this site.

The FRUS project has long been a model of government publication of important documents and this new web interface will be one that is very welcome to students, teachers, and scholars. The documents available on this site, when combined with the other diplomatic documents made available through the National Security Archive, will provide a very useful intro into the main collections of the State Department held at the National Archives. In fact, one could design a very interesting assignment in research methods for students by having them examine which documents the Office of the Historian chose to publish on a particular issue — say the U-2 incident (State|NSA — and then compare those to the documents acquired by the NSA through Freedom of Information Act requests. Why would the government choose to publish some documents, but not others? Why would the NSA choose to publish some, but not others? It is through these sorts of questions that history students will gain a greater awareness of what makes a digital archive and what doesn’t.

The Real #1

January 8th, 2010

Forget about the University of Alabama — the real number one out there turns out to be…me. Who knew?

It turns out that a fellow blogger, writing at Do It Yourself Scholar, decided that the podcasts of my lectures from my course Nationalism in Eastern Europe (last given in the fall of 2007) were the best available on the web. These lectures are available via iTunesU and it was a surprise to me that anyone other than my students was listening. However, over the past few years I’ve heard from a few people who found the lectures, listened, and then offered laudatory or negative feedback.

I intend to offer this course again in the spring 2011 semester and when I do, I plan to use these (and a few others I have recorded) to set up class discussions. Rather than me giving the lectures again, I’ll have the students listen to them prior to class and then we’ll use the class time more productively discussing issues I raised in the lectures, etc. My hope is to do this with all of my courses so that eventually I don’t need to lecture much in class at all.

For those interested in podcasting, don’t be talked into fancy set ups. I made these recordings with my iPod Nano using an iTalk plug in microphone with a small lapel microphone plugged into that. Rather than investing in a serious recording system — as our university has done — I can just drop my Nano in my shirt pocket and blab away. I then do the post-production work in Audacity (free), a software program that took me about an hour to figure out how to use. My total investment, not counting the cost of the Nano, was less than $50.

Why Assessment Gets a Bad Name

December 17th, 2009

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am actually quite supportive of the whole idea of assessment in higher education. I am convinced that we need authentic forms of longitudinal assessment of learning in all of our programs, especially undergraduate programs, that provide us some sort of reasonable picture of whether our students are learning what we want them to learn and whether they are getting better or worse at it. In this way we can have some sense for whether we are doing the right thing for our students.

Without such assessments we are forced to fall back on either (a) the nods and smiles of our students that are supposed to tell us that they “got it” today in class, (b) their performance on tests and essays that we give them that may or may not be tied to departmental learning objectives, or (c) end of semester student evaluations that, of course, are no measure of learning.

However, the experience we are having right now in my department is a perfect example of why faculty members want to run screaming from anyone who utters the dreaded word “assessment.” You may find this difficult to believe (or maybe you won’t), but we are currently having to undergo five separate assessments of learning in our undergraduate program. How can it be that one department could have to engage in five separate assessments simultaneously? I’ll try to explain…

  1. We have our own assessment (one I helped design) that goes like this: All History majors must take History 300 (Historical Methods) and History 499 (Senior Research Seminar). Each semester we select a random sample of final papers from History 300, put them in a file, and the when those students complete History 499, we pull their final research papers. Then we convene as a group and score each pair of papers on a rubric of historical thinking skills to see if (a) our students are learning what we hope they will learn and (b) if, as a group, they are making progress over time. This is an on-going assessment of learning in our major and one we subject ourselves to.
  2. Several years ago our Provost created an Academic Program Review process that, for us, began in 2008, and will continue every other year, apparently forever. This particular process uses a software platform called the “Weave”. Please don’t ask me to tell you how it works. My colleagues and I figured it out in 2008, but it has already been updated several times and apparently now works entirely differently. I won’t tell you the adjectives used to describe the Weave by a colleague in Cultural Studies (this is, after all, a family blog).
  3. We are now in the first full phases of our decennial reaccreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). For now the SACS process is all about making sure we collect credentials and syllabi from our faculty and about creating a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). I am part of the QEP steering committee for the University and the end result will be quite good. Getting to that result is going to be painful at times, but the benefits for our students will make it worthwhile.
  4. We are undergoing an assessment of the general education curriculum. I haven’t been able to determine the mandate for this particular assessment, but for now I’ll refer you to my previous post for some insights into my thinking about general education. The short version is that I think distribution requirements are a good thing. Mandating particular courses (and thereby stifling student choice) is a bad thing.
  5. The State Council for Higher Education for Virginia has mandated an assessment of how all colleges and universities in the state are helping our students become better writers. For this particular assessment a group of seven or eight faculty were asked to come together to use the rubric we use in our assessment of historical thinking skills (see #1 above) to assess student writing. I had to leave that meeting well before it was over, which is probably why I’m still unclear how a rubric designed to measure historical thinking can be used to measure writing. Moreover, I’m unclear how having each academic department in the University measure writing with their own rubrics will yield data that can be aggregated in some sort of meaningful way. But maybe that’s just me…

Okay, got all that? What we have here is one assessment generated by the department, two assessments coming from the Provost’s office, and two from outside agencies with some level of supervisor authority over us.

As much as I seem to be complaining (because I am) that we have so many assessments going on at once, I want to reiterate that I am sympathetic with the need for each one of these. I can’t argue with the need to know all the things that these different assessments are after.

But–and I think this is a very important but–the last time I checked, faculty members were first and foremost supposed to teach their students and second were supposed to produce high quality research. Of course, we also engage in lots of departmental, college, and university service (not to mention community service). Even with those mandates, we must make time for at least some assessment, but five assessments? All at once?