I love the phrase, “Agreed upon past.” But agreed upon by whom. So many of these statehouses that make education policy have no interest in agreeing on anything. They just want to dictate their dogma and intimidate administrators and teachers into forcing it on kids and parents.
Yes—“agreed upon by whom” is exactly the right question.
That said, I don’t quite agree that most policymakers “just want to dictate their dogma.” There are certainly examples of that on both the Left and the Right, and those extreme cases tend to dominate headlines because they’re so dramatic. But I think the bigger problem is quieter and more pervasive: the reasonable majority—people who likely share a great deal of common ground—aren’t really talking about it at all.
The debates over the national history standards in the 1990s set off a firestorm that caused many thoughtful educators, scholars, and policymakers to retreat from these conversations entirely (for a deep dive, I recommend History on Trial, by Gary Nash, Charlotte Crabtree and Ross Dunn).
So instead of building consensus around historical content, the focus shifted to general literacy skills. That’s how we ended up with Common Core. And while it had merits, it also unintentionally sidelined social studies—reducing history instruction to a vague set of “skills” disconnected from meaningful content.
Take, for example, one of the middle school social studies standards in Illinois, where I teach:
“SS.6-8.H.2.MdC. Analyze and compare multiple factors that influenced the perspectives of multiple groups of people during different historical eras relevant to the cultural groups.”
It’s so broad and abstract, it becomes almost unusable.
And it raises more questions than it answers. Who are these “multiple groups”? Which “cultural groups” are we talking about? Can we even talk about Americans as a whole? What counts as a relevant “historical era”? Do we only focus on triumphant narratives—or will we teach challenging periods like Reconstruction? And if we do teach Reconstruction (which I certainly would), whose perspectives get included?
These are complex, deeply human questions. And I understand why school boards, administrators, and even state education departments often don’t have the time, training, or political bandwidth to grapple with them.
That responsibility falls to teachers, department leaders, teacher educators, and historians. And some of them did take it on in the 1990s. They paid a price for it. Now, in an even more polarized climate, the need for that work hasn’t gone away, while it has become harder to do it.
I had thought about putting some of this in the original post, but if I had, I wouldn't have finished by the 4th of July. So thank you for your comment that helped me eke out the rest of it!
So much here. I'm curious how people across the country teach American history these days. I've been teaching it since 1995 and though the facts haven't changed, the interpretation of them certainly has. Politico has an interesting piece on the new Ken Burns American Revolution documentary coming out this fall and the author did not seem suitably impressed, though I couldn't quite put my finger on why. I also teach a US Government and Politics class and ping-ponging back and forth between the two, with plenty of overlap (we do an entire simulation on the creation of the constitution) is certainly interesting. It's really, really hard for kids not to be cynical these days but historical context can help.
Agreed--the interpretation has changed. It has always been changing. That's what we need to teach out students. There certainly are facts that are true: the Constitution was written in 1787. Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12, 1861. But there were those who had different interpretations of the Constitution from the very beginning. History is not just a list of facts, which I'm sure you know. But a lot of lay people don't know that. I will check out the Politico piece, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As far as cynicism goes, I'd argue that fighting it is the most important work history and government teachers do. Cynicism, along with ignorance, are lethal to democracy.
Have you heard of the Harvard Case Study Method? Can I refer you? (I’m a mentor teacher for the program). Check it out. The case studies are very good.
What Lepore calls an “agreed upon past” was in the last century called by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and many others “the received tradition.” It was the responsibility of public schools to teach the elements of that tradition. One of the unintended consequences of an infatuation with multiculturalism, as Schlesinger so clearly saw, was the fracturing of American society and the emergence of identity politics, which inevitably pits one faction against another, each insisting on the priority of its claims. In that setting, there is no recognized tradition that links disparate parts together.
Yes, this has become problematic. I like the way the Viet Thanh Nguyen thinks about this. He is the Pulitzer-winning author of The Sympathizer (a novel about the Vietnam War which I highly recommend!). Also a professor of English and American Studies at UCLA, he writes regularly about issues pertaining to race, ethnicity and immigration. He had a new book come out in April that explores the issue of being "an other" in the U.S. which I don't have time to read, but I heard him on the podcast linked below, and I liked what he had to say.
There is no easy answer to the problem you and Schlesinger point out. What you describe as "an infatuation with multiculturalism" was a necessary correction that swung too far in the other direction. As always, I think the answer lies in the unfortunately large gray area in between the extremes of ignoring diversity or ignoring what we have in common. And of course, it is hard to find that middle ground when both "sides" are so fearful that the other is hell-bent on destroying our country.
I love the phrase, “Agreed upon past.” But agreed upon by whom. So many of these statehouses that make education policy have no interest in agreeing on anything. They just want to dictate their dogma and intimidate administrators and teachers into forcing it on kids and parents.
Yes—“agreed upon by whom” is exactly the right question.
That said, I don’t quite agree that most policymakers “just want to dictate their dogma.” There are certainly examples of that on both the Left and the Right, and those extreme cases tend to dominate headlines because they’re so dramatic. But I think the bigger problem is quieter and more pervasive: the reasonable majority—people who likely share a great deal of common ground—aren’t really talking about it at all.
The debates over the national history standards in the 1990s set off a firestorm that caused many thoughtful educators, scholars, and policymakers to retreat from these conversations entirely (for a deep dive, I recommend History on Trial, by Gary Nash, Charlotte Crabtree and Ross Dunn).
So instead of building consensus around historical content, the focus shifted to general literacy skills. That’s how we ended up with Common Core. And while it had merits, it also unintentionally sidelined social studies—reducing history instruction to a vague set of “skills” disconnected from meaningful content.
Take, for example, one of the middle school social studies standards in Illinois, where I teach:
“SS.6-8.H.2.MdC. Analyze and compare multiple factors that influenced the perspectives of multiple groups of people during different historical eras relevant to the cultural groups.”
It’s so broad and abstract, it becomes almost unusable.
And it raises more questions than it answers. Who are these “multiple groups”? Which “cultural groups” are we talking about? Can we even talk about Americans as a whole? What counts as a relevant “historical era”? Do we only focus on triumphant narratives—or will we teach challenging periods like Reconstruction? And if we do teach Reconstruction (which I certainly would), whose perspectives get included?
These are complex, deeply human questions. And I understand why school boards, administrators, and even state education departments often don’t have the time, training, or political bandwidth to grapple with them.
That responsibility falls to teachers, department leaders, teacher educators, and historians. And some of them did take it on in the 1990s. They paid a price for it. Now, in an even more polarized climate, the need for that work hasn’t gone away, while it has become harder to do it.
I had thought about putting some of this in the original post, but if I had, I wouldn't have finished by the 4th of July. So thank you for your comment that helped me eke out the rest of it!
So much here. I'm curious how people across the country teach American history these days. I've been teaching it since 1995 and though the facts haven't changed, the interpretation of them certainly has. Politico has an interesting piece on the new Ken Burns American Revolution documentary coming out this fall and the author did not seem suitably impressed, though I couldn't quite put my finger on why. I also teach a US Government and Politics class and ping-ponging back and forth between the two, with plenty of overlap (we do an entire simulation on the creation of the constitution) is certainly interesting. It's really, really hard for kids not to be cynical these days but historical context can help.
Agreed--the interpretation has changed. It has always been changing. That's what we need to teach out students. There certainly are facts that are true: the Constitution was written in 1787. Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12, 1861. But there were those who had different interpretations of the Constitution from the very beginning. History is not just a list of facts, which I'm sure you know. But a lot of lay people don't know that. I will check out the Politico piece, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
As far as cynicism goes, I'd argue that fighting it is the most important work history and government teachers do. Cynicism, along with ignorance, are lethal to democracy.
Have you heard of the Harvard Case Study Method? Can I refer you? (I’m a mentor teacher for the program). Check it out. The case studies are very good.
I hadn't. Thanks! https://hbsp.harvard.edu/inspiring-minds/teaching-history-through-the-case-method and https://www.alumni.hbs.edu/stories/Pages/story-impact.aspx?num=5151-- for any readers who are digging into comments!
What Lepore calls an “agreed upon past” was in the last century called by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and many others “the received tradition.” It was the responsibility of public schools to teach the elements of that tradition. One of the unintended consequences of an infatuation with multiculturalism, as Schlesinger so clearly saw, was the fracturing of American society and the emergence of identity politics, which inevitably pits one faction against another, each insisting on the priority of its claims. In that setting, there is no recognized tradition that links disparate parts together.
Yes, this has become problematic. I like the way the Viet Thanh Nguyen thinks about this. He is the Pulitzer-winning author of The Sympathizer (a novel about the Vietnam War which I highly recommend!). Also a professor of English and American Studies at UCLA, he writes regularly about issues pertaining to race, ethnicity and immigration. He had a new book come out in April that explores the issue of being "an other" in the U.S. which I don't have time to read, but I heard him on the podcast linked below, and I liked what he had to say.
There is no easy answer to the problem you and Schlesinger point out. What you describe as "an infatuation with multiculturalism" was a necessary correction that swung too far in the other direction. As always, I think the answer lies in the unfortunately large gray area in between the extremes of ignoring diversity or ignoring what we have in common. And of course, it is hard to find that middle ground when both "sides" are so fearful that the other is hell-bent on destroying our country.
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/1246593561/viet-thanh-nguyen-writing-as-an-other