First, out of respect to the student and the profession I think a teacher NEEDS to be honest. Part of social studies is learning how to be a productive member of society. If teachers are not being honest with the subject matter, what kind of message are the students really getting. Being dishonest is not a great quality student should learn in school look at Berni Madoff, Richard Nixon, or Brent Coles. These are all people brought down for being dishonest.
Second, teachers should ask themselves how is the material I have going to build off of the schemata of my students to foster their growth? It is important to present multiple points of view through history so students can understand that history is objective. But I'm not quite sure it is important to do that with every event throughout history. An example could be the Holocaust. I believe it happened, I also think it was horrible. We have primary sources telling about it. Do we really need to present the opposing side to students? This is the argument that it never really happened. This can be a dangerous as dishonesty. It is encouraged that the students form their own ideas but to present such radical disregard for factual representation can harm the learning process.
As I stated above, by no means is this a complete rubric for teaching. Right now all I've discussed is honesty and schemata. Later on I might disagree with what I've stated here. Please let me know where my thinking has holes or if you agree with any of it.
