What follows isn't a simple solution, but I think it would help make history more interesting to most students.

I've seen both liberal and conservative partisans promoting or at least presuming the funnel theory of teaching history: attach a funnel to the student's brain and pour a bunch of facts into the funnel. These partisans are arguing about which facts (or interpretations of facts) to pour into the funnel.

Say there's a controversy, like "The defenders of the Alamo were (or were not) heroes." Why not formulate the lesson as an investigation ("Were the defenders heroes or not"?) and challenge students to gather historical information to support one side (or better still to gather information to support each side, and then decide if there is a reson to prefer one view over the other). Incidentally, the teacher should not assume the role of judging the viewpoint of the final outcome of the class--just the way the students provided and evaluated evidence. In theory at least, this stance would insulate the teacher from criticism by an agency or organization who wants to force a particular ideology into the funnel.

This is after all what historians themselves do. Why should we deny students the privilege (and the excitement) of looking at historiography as an exploration of human ideas and ideals, and the often significant outcomes that occur when different viewpoints slam up against each other?