History substandards
Guidelines bring some improvement, but still fall short
Full access isn’t far.
We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.
Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.
Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.
LET'S GOAlready a member? Sign in.
After the National Center for History in the Schools released its first version of the National History Standards in 1994, a firestorm of criticism swept the country. Even Lynne Cheney, chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under George Bush and funder for the history standards project, criticized them as too political. Important historical figures like the Wright Brothers and Robert E. Lee had been slighted or omitted all together, Mrs. Cheney charged; her criticism was taken up by the Senate, which passed a resolution by a vote of 99 to 1 condemning the standards. Early this month a new version of the history standards emerged. Like the first set, this one was developed largely by academic historians and professional educators (33 education groups and 1,000 educators, according to a press release). In an attempt to answer the critics, the Council for Basic Education, operating with funding from four foundations including the once-conservative Pew Charitable Trust, also reviewed this draft. The result: new, improved standards that have scrapped the specific teaching examples and expanded some areas. Both changes reflect a sensitivity to conservative criticism, since the teaching examples included much of the biased material. The new draft now offers expanded coverage of achievements in science and technology, economic history, the changing role of education, post-World War II foreign policy and the Cold War, and the continuing search for a common American identity. But there are still major problems:
The standards still show a bias against Christianity and its role in the development of this country. For example, students are to "compare and explain the common elements of Native American cultures such as gender roles, family organizations, religion, values, and environmental interaction." They are also asked to explain "how family organization, gender roles, and religion shaped West African society." In contrast, they are asked to "appraise the customary European family organization, gender roles, acquisition of private property, relationship to the environment, and ideas about other cultures." What is important for students to learn about Native Americans and Africans? Their religious beliefs, for one thing. But what about Europeans? Nothing about religion. The standards are still preoccupied with tracing gender roles. An important question for students examining the colonial period is, "To what extent are families patriarchal?" For recent years there is even a standard promoting the National Organization for Women: "Demonstrate understanding of how women advanced the movement for civil rights and equal rights by analyzing the factors contributing to modern feminism and the emergence of the National Organization for Women (NOW)." Indoctrination starts early: Fifth and sixth graders are to be able to explain "why NOW was formed." In high school, students are to read articles from Ms. magazine and then "explain how feminism was compelling in its analysis of women's problems and the solutions offered." The standards still slant toward liberalism. In examining causes leading to the Depression, students are asked to define "trickle down" economics, a term not usually applied to that period. Fifth graders are asked to "define key terms associated with the Watergate Affair, such as plumbers, enemies list, CREEP." Students are told that Ronald Reagan was called "Herbert Hoover with a smile." Naturally an academic chorus is praising the new standards for their balance. "The history standards project is the most intelligently balanced, non-ideological, and inclusive effort of its kind ever made," said Harold Hyman, a professor at Rice University. Michael Kammen, a professor at Cornell, echoed that refrain, calling the standards, "judicious, non-partisan, and appropriately inclusive." "They will ensure that history is taught in the schools in a balanced, innovative and scholarly way," said Gloria Sesso, president of the Organization of History Teachers. The movement toward national standards might be in a coma, but governors at the recent national education summit meeting (see WORLD, April 6) agreed to push state-level standards. The National History Standards will play a crucial role as state education officials during the next two years define what should be taught, and as textbook publishers seek to reach a standards-hungry market.
Please wait while we load the latest comments...
Comments
Please register, subscribe, or log in to comment on this article.