Middle Level Learning May/June 2024

De/Constructing the Private Sphere: An Inquiry into the History of Housework

Alexandra Thrall

The K-12 history curricular focus on the public sphere (e.g., public institutions and paid employment) to the exclusion of the private sphere (e.g., family and home) reasserts patriarchal norms about what kinds of work are considered valuable while continuously marginalizing many American women’s work, past and present.

An NCSS Position Statement, “Supporting Curricular Promotion and Intersectional Valuing of Women in History and Current Events,” notes:

“The public sphere is prioritized over the private sphere; power, wealth, and influence are emphasized over everyday life. Given the social structures that confine most women’s lives to the private sphere, and (mostly) prohibit or undermine their assumption of public roles in government and the economy, for example, women have largely been left out of the narrative of traditional school history.”1

Curricular initiatives that only include “exceptional” women— those who have contributed to the male-dominated public sphere—reinforce perceptions of the private sphere’s lack of value. 2 Further, the distinction between public and private spheres is not a natural or neat one, if we consider, for instance, the extent to which households are employed in producing and nurturing young citizens. 3 This indistinction is a rich site for inquiry in our social studies classrooms. In this article, I offer teaching resources and insights from a two-week unit that I taught with my eighth grade U.S. history class that deconstructed the boundaries between public and private by investigating the evolution of American household labor and tools.

The unit is anchored in the book More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technologies from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, by Ruth Schwartz Cowan . 4 Published in 1983, this book is representative of the then emerging, interdisciplinary intellectual movement in feminist science and technology studies, of which Cowan was a founding thinker. More Work for Mother challenges traditional historical accounts of women’s work and household technologies by illuminating how the technologies widely adopted in American homes during and after the Industrial Revolution—long heralded as time-saving devices—actually relieved men and children of household labor, while creating more work for women. Works like these have an important role in our history classrooms. Using Cowan’s book as a curricular resource has the potential to (1) de-center dominant (male) nation-state narratives in U.S. history and honor the value of women’s work in the private sphere, (2) upend the normative social beliefs that naturalize the doctrine of separate spheres, and (3) analyze the ways that industrial and technological “progress” have unintended and unexpected consequences that shape our individual and collective lives. 5

While some approaches to teaching this history may run the risk of overgeneralizing and of centering white, middle class

women’s narratives,6 Cowan’s focus on the shifting terrain of gendered household labor and technologies provided my class with a useful foil for discussing the private sphere across time and difference. Beyond simply learning about this history, the unit engages students by inviting them to continue Cowan’s research into the present. In this way, teaching with More Work for Mother offered both an underrepresented historical perspective, and a platform to showcase students’ knowledge and experiences. This overview of Cowan’s work can serve as a distinct resource for including the private sphere in social studies curricula.

More Work for Mother

In More Work for Mother, Ruth Schwartz Cowan demonstrates how the household technologies and industrialized products introduced into American homes during and after the Industrial Revolution shifted household work processes in ways that relieved men and children from household labor, while creating more work for women. Her argument begins by assessing household technological systems and work processes during the period of American colonization. She then carries those analyses through to the 1980s, when the book was written and published. The book offers myriad intricacies of these historical changes and their effects, including arguments about the historical contingency at play in the production

and distribution of household and industrial technologies, and opportunities to ponder paths that would lead, or would have led, to different outcomes. In my curricular unit, I focused on pieces of Cowan’s argument from the colonial era to the mid-twentieth century. What follows is a brief overview of her argument that traces how a shift in the production of grain altered the household distribution of labor.

In Chapter 2, Cowan begins by describing the work it would take to make the daily stew in the average, colonial home in Connecticut. In her description, she illuminates the ways that household labor was divided along gender lines (e.g., women cooked, but men harvested the grain that would thicken the stew), while also depicting the extent to which household labor had to be shared by men, women, and children in order to maintain a functioning household. The colonial era description of shared household labor sets the stage for the significant transformations that Cowan describes as unfolding through the Industrial Revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She discusses many of the household technologies and production systems that came to characterize this phenomenon—from the cast iron stove, to ready-made clothes.

One example that illustrates the gendered effects of household technologies and industrial production is the (often overlooked) history of the industrialization of flour milling. While colonial men in wheat growing regions had an integral role to play in the work processes of producing flour (i.e., planting, tending, and harvesting the wheat; then, threshing, winnowing, and seeing to its grinding), removing the work of flour production from the home effectively eliminated this male household labor. Production shifts like this one had massive consequences. For male household members, this shift ushered in a transfer of their labor from the home, where they were less needed, to the marketplace, where their labor was increasingly demanded in the production and distribution of goods like flour, and where they would earn wages needed to support their family’s

Cradling wheat near Sperryville, Virginia. A hand binder follows the mower. 1936

growing dependence on market commodities. For female household members, this same production shift increased their workload in ways that are largely obscured from traditional school narratives. Flour milling, for instance, produced a fine (white) flour, unlike the coarse rye or wheat flour that was produced from household labor. This distinction quickly enabled the spread of new cooking and baking techniques. While some form of daily stew was a nearly ubiquitous feature of American colonial diets, the introduction of fine white flour, and, concurrently, the cast iron stove, gave way to bread baking and cake baking, and the shifting expectations and tastes that demanded more female-labor intensive work in the process.

Cowan discusses the net benefits that new technologies and processes proffered—the greater variety of diet improved family health, for instance—however, the burden of these improvements was shouldered by women, whose labor lost recognition as wage-earning labor became the male norm. Cowan demonstrates when and how the doctrine of separate

spheres emerged and how traditional accounts of female liberation associated with industrial and technological “progress ” got the story wrong.

Unit Overview

More Work for Mother is an excellent resource, around which to build middle grades history curriculum that deconstructs the separate spheres. Additionally, this unit served as a robust, standards-aligned and project-based study of American Industrialization, as it illustrates Industrial Era labor and technologies, and contributes to students’ understandings of the fundamentals of market economics, like the division of labor. Even though I taught this unit in the specific context of eighth-grade United States history, it’s focus on topics ranging from gender relations, labor, and technology make it easily adaptable across grade levels and content areas.7 Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of the unit as I undertook it with my eighth grade students.

continued on page 7

Photographer: Russell Lee, Courtesy of Library of Congress

Woman removes baked bread from oven, near Taos, New Mexico. 1939

Unit Guide

See http://civicsoftechnology.org/more-work-for-mother for lesson resources

Framing questions:

1. Who in a family traditionally does most of the housework? Why?

2. When did the household division of labor (the doctrine of separate spheres) form? Why?

3. How did technological innovations, like the invention of the stove, change housework?

Activity 1: Have students make predictions based on these framing questions. Write these questions on anchor charts and have students write their answers on post-its to stick to the anchor charts. Discuss students’ preliminary thoughts and why they believe what they believe.

Activities 2-5: Read selected chapters from More Work for Mother. I modified and occasionally added pictures to Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 7 (see civicsoftechnology.org for the modified chapters). Students can read independently or read the chapters out loud as a class and discuss reactions.

After each chapter, discuss the reading questions in Table 2.

Culminating Project:

After completing reading and analysis, students collect their own empirical data, asking: How has housework changed or stayed the same since Ruth Schwartz Cowan wrote More Work for Mother?

Give students the option to complete one or more of the following tasks:

• Interview a person who does housework in your home.

• Keep a time chart on the amount of housework done by an adult in your home.

• Complete housework on your own and document the work process.

Have students bring the data they collect to class and work in a team to compile findings that address the research question. Have students present findings to the class and discuss the continuity and changes in household labor from the colonial era to present.

Chapter 1 Questions

What is considered to be “men’s work” and what is considered to be “women’s work” in our society?

Why do you think that division of labor along gender lines formed?

What tools do you regularly use? How do they shape your behavior?

Think of a household chore. Describe the whole work process for that chore.

Chapter 2 Questions

What is the “doctrine of separate spheres”? Why did it form?

How was housework divided between men and women? Why was it divided this way?

Chapter 3 Questions

Why did people start buying flour, instead of making it, during the early 1800s?

What is the difference between the flour that people bought and the flour that people made?

How did buying flour, rather than making it, change household work for men and women?

How did people feel about stoves when they were first invented?

Why are stoves more “economical”?

How did stoves change household work for men and women?

Chapter 7 Questions

Return to the original framing questions and student responses. Allow students to amend their responses based on the readings and make predictions about the current state of household work that they will investigate in their culminating project.

Table 1: More Work for Mother

Table 2: More Work for Mother Reading Questions

Student Work Samples

Men and women today struggle to balance chores and household work

Today, we have also found that both men and women today struggle with trying to balance household chores and work. We believe this to have been found because while women used to do all of the household chores, and men went out to work, they both had one primary task to take care of. But now, both are attempting to split household chores and work, and find it very difficult balance.

● In one interview, we asked a mother if chores or housework dominated her daily time, and she replied, “They battle, and if one takes priority then the other will suffer, so they are always at odds with each other.” We then proceeded to ask her what part of her day stresses her out the most, and she responded with, “Trying to work enough hours at my stay at home job online so I can make enough money for us.” So clearly, the attempt in balance of chores and work also pours into the balance of cleanliness and profit, which is difficult and vital to handle.

Modern machines can be inconvenient and hard to use

While modern machines can aid both men and women in doing housework, they can also be very unconventional, because they break down easily and require professionals to be fixed. This causes problems with people not being able to use their machines for long periods of time. For example, in one household, a washing machine is always broken and has to be started again every 5-15 minutes in order to clean clothes. While, inconvenient, it still works to clean clothes.

Student Work Samples

There is a traditional food in our country named shiro,so i made that last wednesday at lunch time its made with 1 onion,a cup of oil,a bottle of water and shiro peper. This is what I made last wednesday, but you could also add so many things.something like chili,salt and other things. I can make other traditional foods of Ethiopia and Eritrea too.

1. Cutting the onion and embedding to the pot

2 Waiting maximum for 5 minutes if its 1 onion and if it's more than that waiting according to the number of the onion

3 Adding the oil according to the number of the onion

4 Wait for minutes

5 Adding a water as much as you want

6 Waiting until it boils

7 Adding the shiro pepper and mixing it

8 Waiting for 3 minutes or something

9. Adding the rest of things like chili,tomatoes,salt

10. Waiting for 2 or more than minutes and well done

And you can also add it to other foods like this…

More Work for Mother Time Study Sheet

Time on Clock Time Spent (minutes) Task Description

9:00am 5 m Take out the trash: go to the trash bin, get the bags tied and throw in outside big trash

9:30am 15 - 20m Walk dogs: get dogs on leash, go outside and walk them

11am 20 - 35 m Mow lawn: get a lawn mower and cut the grass on your lawn

1pm 30m - 1h Fold clothes: u fold the washes and dried clothes

3pm 10m Clean cat litter: get a scoper and pick up poop out of cat litter

4pm 25 mins Clean room: fold bed vacuum pick up trash

4:30pm 30m Sweep/mop floors of house

5:00pm 20m Put clothes in the washing machine

After dinner 20m Wash dishes: get dishes, get food off, put in the dishwasher

THE HISTORY OF HOUSEWORK from page 5

Deconstructing the Private Sphere in History and Our Students’ Lives

As this unit unfolded, it exceeded my expectations. My students became fluent in some of the intricacies and nuances of American industrialization and market economics, but from the counter narrative lens of the private sphere. We marveled together as Cowan challenged our assumptions about technological “progress” and the doctrine of separate spheres. However, beyond that, I also got to watch my students assert their expertise on the history of their own present. 8 Every day of this unit was met with raucous discussion and descriptions of students’ daily lives— from how their families divided housework differently, to the tools they used to do it. During each of my five periods’ discussions on the invention of the cast-iron stove, for instance, at least one student erupted into a disquisition on the needless labor required to maintain cast iron cookware, followed by deep outpouring of empathy for women of the past, who had to clean an entire stove with that process. Afterall, as Cowan notes, “[Housework] is also the form of work that each of us—male and female, adult and child—pursues for at least some part of every week….” (p.9).9 It should come as no surprise that this study speaks to the daily, lived experiences of middle school students. As students brought the data they collected for their project to class—whether they be recipes they used while making shiro (see student recipe top left), audio recordings of interviews with their mother or grandmother, or time studies that include household aids as overlooked as trash bags (see student Time Study Sheet bottom left)—students were then invited to interrogate the contingencies

and assumptions that continue to underlie these normative practices in their own lives. Some students had revelations about the extent to which their initial assumptions about how housework in their home was divided (many of them asserting, at first, that they did most of the housework, or that it was evenly divided among the family), were surprised that their data suggested that their mother still carried the majority of the burden. Others were able to assert that gendered household labor expectations had shifted, as evidenced by their data, and theorize the causes for this shift in the present. Hence, even if their experiences differed from the narrative being represented in More Work for Mother, their ownership of the private sphere gave them unprecedented agency in making interventions into historical dominant narratives. In all, teaching with More Work for Mother opened the door to the private sphere in history, and invited my students’ lives into the classroom.

Notes

1. “Supporting Curricular Promotion and Intersectional Valuing of Women in History and Current Events,” A Position Statement of National Council for the Social Studies, www.socialstudies.org/posi tion-statements/supporting-curricular-promotion-and-intersectionalvaluing-women-history-and

2. Nel Noddings, “The Care Tradition: Beyond ‘Add Women and Stir,’” Theory Into Practice 40, no. 1 (2001): 29-34.

3. Erin C. Adams, “Family,” in Keywords in Social Studies: Concepts and

Conversations, eds. Daniel G. Krutka, Anna McMahon Whitlock and Mark Helmsing (New York: NY: Peter Lang, 2018), 169-180.

4. Ruth Schwartz Cowan, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1983).

5. Daniel G. Krutka, Scott Alan Metzger, and R. Zackary Seitz, “‘Technology Inevitably Involves Trade-Offs’: The Framing of Technology in Social Studies Standards,” Theory & Research in Social Education 50, no. 2 (March 11, 2022): 226-254.

6. Amanda E. Vickery, “‘You Excluded Us for so Long and Now You Want Us to Be Patriotic?’: African American Women Teachers Navigating the Quandary of Citizenship,” Theory & Research in Social Education 45, no. 3 (2017): 318–348.

7. See R. Zackary Seitz and Alexandra Thrall, “The Gross Bias of Domestic Production Calculations: How Our Teaching of GDP Ignores the Value of Household Labor,” Civics of Technology (blog), March 10, 2024. www.civicsoftechnology.org/blog/the-gross-bias-of-domestic-produc tion-calculationshow-our-teaching-of-gdp-ignores-the-value-ofhousehold-labor

8. For more on ‘history of the present,’ see Liz Harrelson Magill, and Kevin R. Magill, “Mechanisms of Misarticulation: A Critical Examination of Texas Social Studies Standards.” Paper presented at College & University Faculty Assembly of the National Council of the Social Studies, Nashville, Tenn., 2023. Forthcoming.

9. Cowan, More Work for Mother

A New book from NCSS and the C3 Teachers!

The twenty-seven published articles in this book, drawn primarily from the “Teaching the C3 Framework” columns in Social Education , demonstrate how the ideas of the C3 Framework have made their way into many facets of social studies: standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and teacher education. Looking back on a decade of inquiry, Kathy Swan, S. G. Grant, and John Lee invite you to join the celebration of the C3 Framework’s impact on social studies education and to continue blazing the inquiry trail and fueling the revolution.

¡Viva la inquiry revolución!

Alexandra Thrall is a former teacher and administrator and a current doctoral researcher in Baylor University’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

Running with the Bulls: Tanya Schmidt on Living a Life of Inquiry in Oshkosh, Wisconsin

Edited by MaryBeth Yerdon, Kathy Swan, John Lee, and S.G. Grant

After almost 20 years of service to her district in Oshkosh, Tanya Schmidt began working to revamp her school district’s K-5 social studies curriculum and, three years ago, she became the Oshkosh Area School District’s Social Studies Curriculum coordinator. Although Tanya has served in many roles (e.g., teacher, tutor, and standards writer), she says that her heart has always been in helping social studies teachers learn best practices for building students’ curiosity in the classroom. C3 Teachers sat down with Tanya to talk about the state of education in Wisconsin, the Inquiry Design Model (IDM) as best cross-curricular practice, and what it means to live a life of inquiry.

Tanya Schmidt (back left) co-leads an inquiry professional learning session with social studies teachers and Kathy Swan in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in August 2023.

C3 Teachers: What does inquiry look like in Oshkosh?

TS: Recently, the Wisconsin state superintendent’s office developed a suggested social studies scope and sequence for school districts. The goal is to purposefully integrate civics education more seamlessly into our K-12 social studies curriculum. The superintendent’s office hopes that, if students get more instruction on how our state and federal governments work, they will gain an in-depth understanding of their roles as democratic citizens. When the new scope and sequence first came out in 2018, our district opted in. In addition to the

demands of the standards and scope and sequences, our district wanted to weave civics education throughout our social studies curriculum. For example, whereas students might traditionally learn about the Wisconsin state government in fourth grade, we wanted to spiral state civics education from third grade all the way up through middle school.

To support these efforts, our district is working with Kathy Swan and C3 Teachers on creating a series of inquiries that fit our district’s horizontal and vertically looping curriculum.* Together, Kathy, the middle school teachers, and I have been creating horizontal inquiry loops for the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Each loop has its own identity—sixth grade, culture (How does culture define a region?); seventh grade, artifacts (What do artifacts tell us about the past?); and eighth grade, perspective taking (How should history remember events?). Together, these inquiry loops make a meaningful progression of concepts for our middle school teachers and students (see page 10).

C3 Teachers: Why did you see inquiry and the IDM as a means for supporting the state’s suggested scope and sequence?

TS: Seeking answers to the unknown and finding solutions to complex problems are central to democratic citizenship, and this type of student-centered learning is also what makes inquiry-based social studies so engaging. Inquiry feeds off kids’ natural curiosities. As teachers, if we think about what makes

* Looping inquiry means offering students opportunities to engage in inquiry in regular intervals and in a coherent fashion within and across grade levels. “Horizontal looping” is when we are thinking about those intervals within a course. “Vertical looping” is when we are thinking about intervals across grade levels.

Seventh Grade Curricular Inquiry Loop for Oshkosh, Wisc.

learning fun for us, it’s looking for answers and asking big questions. For example, even as a little kid I always loved sleuthing out answers to questions, diving deep into new topics, and uncovering mysteries. Like many teachers, I’m curious and, naturally, this curiosity means that I’m living a life of inquiry. So often kids’ natural curiosities are not central to what they are learning, and that’s not the case with inquiry. Finding answers to questions is what makes learning engaging, and that is exactly what the IDM helps teachers do. Plus, the best part about inquiry is that it puts students in charge of their own learning, which takes a lot of pressure off the teacher to know everything. When teachers can shift from depositing information to facilitating learning, they can change the learning paradigm and discover alongside their students.

C3 Teachers: When you started your new position, how did you get teachers on board with inquiry, especially when they were making the shift from direct instruction to classroom facilitation the first time?

TS: Self-paced learning! I provide lots of resources for teachers to use in their own time. Some dive right in and others take

a slower approach. I try to meet teachers where they are. For example, I have one particularly artistic teacher. He ended up integrating social studies and art-based learning using an inquiry on Valley Forge. They were using evidence about the harsh environments that soldiers endured at Valley Forge [during the Revolutionary War] to make artistic representations. I observed the teacher drawing and telling stories about Valley Forge. While the teacher drew, the students made their own evidence-based depictions.

The end products were some of the most powerful examples of inquiry and curricular integration that I have seen. Looking at the kids’ pieces and the many ways they exhibited the knowledge and skills they learned was impressive. But even more so, was how students exemplified empathy through their artmaking, that was even more powerful.

Now, this teacher was a natural talent, he picked inquiry up right away and applied his own unique talents to using inquiry in the classroom. But that is not always the case, and that is okay, too. I have also worked with teachers who are resistant to shifting from lecture-based teaching to student-centered learning. Typically, it is a struggle to get the more hesitant

teachers on board, but once they let go and give inquiry a try, the results are amazing. Regardless of where teachers fall on this spectrum, I always try to give them resources, support, and most importantly comfort for taking instructional risks.

C3 Teachers: When you observe inquiry in action what do you see?

TS: Mostly I see kids engaged. I see joy, curiosity, and enthusiasm for learning. One significant observation I’ve made relates to how inquiry supports positive behavior and classroom management. I was supporting this class that had some highflier behavior challenges. When the teacher started integrating interactive practices like inquiry, it mitigated some of those behavior struggles. When students drive the learning, teachers find out how each of their students learns best. All the multiple ways kids can approach making evidence-based arguments allows teachers to see the diversity of interests and talents in their classrooms. Once we figure out how kids learn best, we can find ways to help kids be their best. Once kids see their talents and interests valued in the classroom, then we have hooked them. Then, once kids get in the driver’s seat and take the wheel, you’re off, it’s just running with the bulls from that point.

C3 Teachers: What’s your advice to teachers who want to dive into inquiry but aren’t sure where to start and may not have a district- or state-wide initiative to push them forward?

TS: Don’t be afraid to teach differently than how you learned, and be comfortable with uncertainty. When we let go and let kids drive the learning, teachers can feel unsteady and that can make us feel uncomfortable. But for the most part, humans live in uncertainty. It is our ability to ask questions, consider evidence, and make claims that helps us navigate the uncertainty of life. Why should the classroom be any different? In essence, inquiry is there before we start teaching, it’s part of our daily lives.

C3 Teachers: What do you consider to be the future of inquiry and the IDM?

TS: Since I have been in this position, we have been talking about universality and consistency in the language of inquiry: compelling questions, supporting questions, claims, and evidence. Second, since social studies and the arts are so

intertwined, it made sense for me to reach out to our arts coordinator to think about arts integration. Inquiry is a great way to integrate more arts-based education, which is so often left out. Through inquiry, in our district, we are weaving together arts and social studies; seeing that combination come together for kids in the classroom is a wonderful thing. Third, inquiry complements other pedagogies, like projectbased learning. Through project-based learning and inquiry, I’ve been working with teachers on integrating science, social studies, and literacy.

Bringing these content areas and approaches together, while shifting to more student-centered learning, has significant outcomes for classroom management. Finally, since there are already so many inquiries out there and because of their adaptability, inquiry supports the needs of both students with diverse needs and from diverse backgrounds. I think the next step for inquiry is to think about how inquiry and the Inquiry Design Model are universal, they aren’t just for social studies.

and

Kathy, John, and S.G. have worked as leaders and writers in the C3 Framework project and know first-hand the critical role teachers play in the implementation and realization of the C3 goals. Their work extends beyond the C3 into teacher education and preparing new teachers to tackle the challenges of teaching social studies in the 21st century.

Teachers from around the world are using inquiry and the IDM in the classroom. Creating community through connecting teachers is one of C3 Teachers’ primary goals. Through inquiry development, hubs, blogging, the C3 Teachers Institute, and the Making Inquiry Possible Project C3 Teachers strive to support teachers as they implement inquiry in the classroom. Join us! We want to hear from you.

The C3 Teachers initiative is guided by MaryBeth Yerdon (SUNY Cortland), Kathy Swan (University of Kentucky), John Lee (North Carolina State University),

S.G. Grant (Binghamton University).

MaryBeth Yerdon

Kathy Swan John Lee S. G. Grant

This interview, conducted over two sessions, has been edited and condensed.

Sarah Segal is a middle school teacher in Hood River, Oregon, specializing in history and social studies, language arts, and art. She has been a classroom teacher for more than 20 years, is a former president of the Oregon Council for the Social Studies (OCSS) and current member of the NCSS Book Award Committee.

Q. Why did you become a teacher?

A. I’ve always loved learning. In college I studied archaeology, and even spent a summer working at a neanderthal site in France. However, after a year as an AmeriCorps volunteer, I realized I’m most inspired by engaging in my community, especially with students in my school and their families.

Q. What teaching success or career achievement are you most proud of?

A. A group of my middle school students collaborated with the Minoru Yasui Legacy Project in 2013 to ask President Obama to honor the Oregon-born Japanese American attorney, Yasui, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The endeavor was successful, and our class continued honoring the civil rights hero by working with Oregon legislators and former-Governor Katherine Brown to formally dedicate March 28th in Yasui’s honor.

Q. When and why did you join NCSS?

A. I initially joined NCSS in 2010 to access classroom resources. However, beyond resources, many of my NCSS colleagues

provide me with a thoughtful compass for responsible classroom teaching.

Q. How has being a part of a professional association enriched your career?

A. Being part of professional associations, in both the humanities and sciences, has provided me with community. When I first joined the Oregon Council for the Social Studies (OCSS), Gayle Thieman, 2007 NCSS president and professor at Portland State University, quickly took me under her wing. In addition, Kristy Brugar, Social Studies Education professor at the University of Oklahoma, is my faithful collaborator on the NCSS Book Award Committee. Over the years, both these women have become trusted friends. As a middle school teacher, this year my teaching partner is a young first-year educator. Although I am the official mentor, everyday I learn more about the future of education from him. My advice to all educators, regardless of where they are in their career, is to find and develop intergenerational mentorships and friendships. Surround yourself with people who inspire and support you. NCSS is a great place to find this community.

Middle School Teachers, we want to hear from you! Tell us how you teach your favorite lesson. Is it about Reconstruction? The Spanish-American War? The Silk Road? Share your approach with other teachers. Submit an article to Middle Level Learning at www.editorialmanager.com/ncssjournals.

MIDDLE LEVEL LEARNING

Jennifer Bauduy, MLL Editor • Nancy Driver, Director of Publications

•

Rich Palmer, Art Manager

photo: @joyreynekephotography