History Standards
Author: Daniel Klenbort
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 09:59:47 -0500
Morehouse College
From: Chris Garton-Zavesky > North Carolina State University
I was observing that, for people who believe so much in the "equal validity" of other cultures, patriotism is a meaningless quality. This can hardly be true. If the cultures of say Mazzini, or Bismarck, or Theodore Roosevelt are each valid then patriotism is valid. I'm not quite sure what this means, but it seems to follow. While I'm at it, if Aztec culture is valid, then so is cannibalism. Come to think of it, is "valid" a meaningful modifier of culture? Can cultures be valid any more than they can be blue or sour tasting?
Author: Chris Garton-Zavesky
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 14:45:01 -0500
North Carolina State University
For the record, I am a dual national, being both a citizen of the United States and a subject of the British crown. I am not, nor was I, proposing a "wrap yourself in the flag" approach to history. I was observing that, for people who believe so much in the "equal validity" of other cultures, patriotism is a meaningless quality. In fact, I should like to propose a "multifaceted philosophical approach" to teaching history Take the following potential exam question (this will, I'm afraid, show my intellectual history bent, but it will, I suspect, adapt well to other fields of inquiry).
"In August 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on each of two cities in Japan. Given what you have studied about both countries during and previous to the war, write two hypothetical newspaper articles for each country, illustrating how each culture dealt with the event. Remember that certain givens exist, and that in each case you are writing for the native reading population".
OR
" Imagine you are Stephen Douglas. You have just discovered Abraham Lincoln's crib notes for your upcoming debate. Knowing his argument, construct a case that answers his objections before he makes them. Be sure to identify which arguments you are refuting. Win the debate without proving that slavery is a moral good."
Chris Garton-Zavesky
gartoncj@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu
Author: Ross Dunn
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 18:48:31 -0500
San Diego State University
Reply to Patrick Lukens and interested colleagues:
The National Center for History has recently sent diskettes of the United States and K-4 standards to the H-Net, so they should be available through the listserv in due course. As many of you know, the world history standards are already available.
All three standards volumes will also soon be available at both gopher and WWW sites at UCLA. When this has been accomplished, I will let you know how you can access them..
These electronic versions of the standards are complete with the exception of charts, illustrations, information on participating organizations, and final chapter on teacher resources.
To obtain the printed standards write to the National Center for History in the Schools, UCLA, 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 761, Los Angeles, CA 90024. Fax an order request to (310) 825-4723.
Author: Patrick Lukens
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:49:57 -0500
Arizona State University
Greetings:
I have accessed the world standards using the listserv system, and I was wondering if anyone knows if the US standards are also available, and if so, what is the command to get them? Thanks for any help you have to offer...
--Patrick
Author: "Franks, Mike SSC"
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:22:24 -0700
Due to a keystroke error, I may have forwarded a pile of gibberish to the list. Here is the intended message.
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:00:27 EST
To: kpomeran@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu
Subject: History Standards Web under construction
Dear Ken Pomeranz:
I sent an e-mail message to the National History Center to inquire where the standards might be found on the web in order to follow up on a query by Haines Brown that appeared on H-World last Thursday. Mike Franks' message below was in response to that inquiry.
Will you let the folks on H-World know where to find the standards or shall I? I think the information would also be of interest to the H-Teach list.
I suspect you did not receive Mike Franks' response on Tuesday since he included the z on your last name in his e-mail address.
Sharon Caughill
To: sharon@oah.indiana.edu, kpomeranz@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu
Copies to: "Symcox, Linda Histr-NCHS" ,
"Nash, Gary HISTORY"
Sharon Caughill and Ken Pomeranz,
The Web pages for the National Center for History in the Schools are under construction. You'll find them at . Of the guidelines, part of the U.S. Guidelines are in place, and the others will be coming as soon as I can find the time. Please take a look and see what you think. And please forward this to the H-World list as I don't belong.
I'm afraid I don't know what CD ROM you are referring to, but I'm not part of the center, so maybe they can tell me.
Mike Franks Internet: franks@ssc.sscnet.ucla.edu Social Sciences Computing Phone: (310) 206-2109
UCLA
Author: "Franks, Mike SSC"
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:18:16 -0700
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 09:00:27 EST
To: kpomeran@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu
Subject: History Standards Web under construction
Dear Ken Pomeranz:
I sent an e-mail message to the National History Center to inquire where the standards might be found on the web in order to follow up on a query by Haines Brown that appeared on H-World last Thursday. Mike Franks' message below was in response to that inquiry.
Will you let the folks on H-World know where to find the standards or shall I? I think the information would also be of interest to the H-Teach list.
I suspect you did not receive Mike Franks' response on Tuesday since he included the z on your last name in his e-mail address.
Sharon Caughill <- - - - Forwarded Message Follows - - - - - - -
To: sharon@oah.indiana.edu, kpomeranz@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu
Copies to: "Symcox, Linda Histr-NCHS" ,
"Nash, Gary HISTORY"
Subject: History Standards Web under construction
Date sent: Tue, 08 Aug 95 17:31:00 PDT
Sharon Caughill and Ken Pomeranz,
The Web pages for the National Center for History in the Schools are under construction. You'll find them at . Of the guidelines, part of the U.S. Guidelines are in place, and the others will be coming as soon as I can find the time. Please take a look and see what you think. And please forward this to the H-World list as I don't belong.
I'm afraid I don't know what CD ROM you are referring to, but I'm not part of the center, so maybe they can tell me.
Mike Franks Internet: franks@ssc.sscnet.ucla.edu Social Sciences Computing Phone: (310) 206-2109
UCLA
Author: Chris Garton-Zavesky
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 14:04:27 -0500
North Carolina State University
GARTONCJ@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu
Thank you to Ross Dunn for clarifying the points at issue in my last posting. I still oppose the standards outright, but Ross has given me reason to believe that the rot within the teaching profession is much wider than I had believed.
Consider that the students are, if memory serves, asked to understand "world forces" -- as moving through history. Since I find this ahistorical, I will continue to oppose the standards. The emphasis on applying theories rather than acquiring details (i.e., the move away from nuts and bolts history and toward blueprint history) also bothers me. This is, of course, worth exactly as much as any other person's opinion, so I will leave it at that.
Chris Garton-Zavesky
gartoncj@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu
NCSU
An aspiring teacher
Author: Ross Dunn
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 11:55:38 -0500
San Diego State University
rdunn@sciences.sdsu.edu
Re: Reply to Chris G-Z regarding my comment on Sec. Riley's statement renouncing the National Standards for U.S. History
My comment said nothing about teachers being consulted for ideas on "implementation" of the standards. There has of course been discussion of that issue, but implementation is in the hands of states, school districts, social studies departments, and individual teachers.
Chris's question seems astonishing to me. The dozens of K-12 teachers who participated in drafting the US and world history guidelines continually "scrutinized" their on-going work and repeatedly asked the question, "Is this a valuable standard." Teams representing all the major history organizations (AHA, OAH, NCSS, WHA, OHT, NCHE and others) scrutinized advanced drafts of the standards, and those critical reviews resulted in numerous deletions, additions, and modifications. Many individual teachers and scholars submitted their own criticisms of the standards, and further changes were made. Twenty-nine organizations that made up the National Forum on History Standards (including the AFT, NEA, Lutheran schools, and so on) examined the drafts, and some of these groups submitted detailed critiques.
Chris's question seems to perpetuate the fiction that a tiny committee at UCLA wrote the standards and foisted them on the public without given anyone a chance to review them and offer recommendations. If that is not what he is suggesting, he can clarify.
The scrutiny of the first edition of the standards has, as everyone knows, continued at a fever pitch during the past year. Some of the commentary has been purely political, but much of it has been responsible and valuable. (E.g., the issue of THE HISTORY TEACHER dedicated to reviews of the standards). The revised edition of the guidelines, which I expect will reflect the corpus of responsible commentary that has come in during the past year as well as the work of the independent review committees sponsored by the CBE, will be even more useful instructional tools than they are now.
Ross Dunn
PS--Recent press: Eric Foner, "Bobbing History," THE NATION, Sept, 25, 1995
From: Chris Garton-Zavesky
North Carolina State University GARTONCJ@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu
To Ross Dunn:
I will address only the last part of what you said. Certainly ideas on How best to implement standards may have been solicited from teachers throughout the quadrant, but were the standards themselves ever subjected to scrutiny? Was anyone ever asked:"Is this a valuable standard"? Chris Garton-Zavesky, ardent opponent of the standards
Author: Chris Garton-Zavesky
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 12:01:41 -0500
North Carolina State University
GARTONCJ@hcl.chass.ncsu.edu
To Ross Dunn:
I will address only the last part of what you said. Certainly ideas on How best to implement standards may have been solicited from teachers throughout the quadrant, but were the standards themselves ever subjected to scrutiny? Was anyone ever asked:"Is this a valuable standard"?
Chris Garton-Zavesky, ardent opponent of the standards
Author: Ross Dunn
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 22:23:38 -0500
San Diego State University
rdunn@sciences.sdsu.edu
Many of you are aware that on Labor Day Sen. Robert Dole, in an address to the American Legion, had harsh words for the National Standards for U.S. History, asserting that the approach the standards take "threatens us as surely as any foreign power ever has." Dole's remarks were limited largely to restatement of charges that Lynne Cheney made in the Wall Street Journal last October 20.
On the same day (September 4) Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education, released the following statement regarding U.S. History Standards.
"The U.S. history standards released by the UCLA National
Center for History late last year were funded by a $1.6
million grant awarded by then-Chairwoman Lynne Cheney of the
National Endowment for the Humanities and Lamar Alexander,
then the U.S. Secretary of Education.
"This was not our grant. This is not my idea of good
standards. This in not my view of how history should be
taught in America's classrooms. As I have said previously
this first effort was a set back and a disappointment. The
historians need to go back to the drawing board to produce a
positive and well-balanced history of our country.
"This is a great country with a great history. This is what
we need to teach our children. We don't have to whitewash
our history. We have to acknowledge both the peaks and
valleys in our past and recognize the contributions of all
Americans, regardless of their station in life. But the
message must be a positive one. Our schools should teach
our students to be proud to be Americans.
"The President does not believe and I do not believe that
the UCLA standards should form the basis for a history
curriculum in our schools. This is why I am pleased that
the Council for Basic Education led by Christopher Cross, a
former Assistant Secretary of Education under President
Bush, has stepped forward to sponsor two independent panels
to review the draft history standards.
"These panels are led by well-respected individuals: former
Governor Al Quie of Minnesota for the U.S. History
Standards; and Steven Muller, Ph.d., President Emeritus of
The Johns Hopkins University for the world history panel.
The review process will be completed in October.
"Except for the history standards that are now under review,
all the other model standards that have been produced to
date have been well received. It is important to recognize
that the standards produced by various academic groups in
civics, science, math, the arts, geography and other
subjects are voluntary. States and local school districts
can choose to use them if they wish. There is no federal
requirement and absolutely no linkage between their use and
federal education dollars.
"The debate over the draft history standards should not
deter us from going forward in our effort to raise academic
standards. We need to improve our schools. Our children
not only need to know the basics; they also need to learn
real life skills that prepare them for the future. This is
why we must set the highest possible standards."
END OF STATEMENT.
Comment: The Council for Basic Education is scheduled to announce its report on October 11. The National Center for History has welcomed this thoughtful review of the standards and has cooperated fully in supplying the CBE with information. The work of the review panels is entirely independent of the Department of Education. Moreover, it is not my understanding that the mission of the CBE project is to send historian's "back to the drawing board."
Secretary Riley has characterized the history guidelines as the "UCLA standards." This is the same phrase hostile right-wing critics have used in order to convince the American public that an in-house committee of UCLA professors (all of them 60s radicals!) wrote history standards for the nation. Riley's assertion will come as a surprise to the dozens of hometown teachers from Alaska, Colorado, Vermont, and many other states who participated in developing the standards. Riley must be perfectly aware of the broad-based process, involving the AHA, OAH, NCSS, WHA, and many other professional and public interest organizations, by which the first editions of the standards were produced.
Ross Dunn
Author: Sharon Caughill
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 00:06:13 -0500
Organization of American Historians
(forwarded with assistance from Sara Tucker)
One-Day Conferences on National History Standards
Through the Fund for American History, the OAH will make a limited number of grants of up to $500, as seed money to encourage history departments to meet with history school teachers in their region to discuss the teaching of history using the national standards.
Many OAH members were involved in writing and testing the national standards, and the OAH itself was one of 30 organizations officially consulted at various stages of their development. The OAH believes there is a compelling need for those interested in history in the schools particularly higher education faculty and precollegiate teachers to come together for full and free discussion of the history standards.
The National Center on History Standards at UCLA, which developed the standards, is prepared to provide copies for use in conjunction with such a conference at a 25% discount. The center can also provide to history department conference organizers the names of people in their region who worked on the development of the standards.
Departments interested in applying for a one-day conference grant should send a proposal/budget of no more than two pages to one of the addresses below. We look forward to hearing from you.
OAH/Educational Policy Committee
112 North Bryan Street or sharon@oah.indiana.edu
Bloomington, IN 47408-4199
Proposals should be sent by September 30, 1995.
A free copy of the OAH Magazine of History devoted to National History Standards (Vol. 9, #3, Spring, 1995), may be requested by sending an e-mail message to:
The text of the U.S. History Standards is available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/nchs/
Author: Thomas Martin
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 08:54:35 -0500
San Francisco State University
tmm@sfsu.edu
The fundamental paradox of Paul Gagnon's article is that his thesis is that national standards are desperately needed, and that they would be best left to 'content-area' specialists rather than educational adminstrators. He then proceeds into a digression on "Botched Standards" (the world history standards) in which he contradicts his own thesis with a critique of the standards which reads like an excerpt from James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me.
It is a curiously absurd piece of journalism.
Author: Ross Dunn
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:31:40 -0500
San Diego State University
rdunn@sciences.sdsu.edu
H-World and other H-Net subscribers may be interested in reading and debating an article by Paul Gagnon in the December issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Entitled "What Should Children Learn?", the article includes a major section presenting a severe critique of the National Standards for World History. Gagnon argues that the standards slight the history of ideas--political, religious, ethical, moral--and include far too little "on the political history that makes sophisticated citizens."
Dr. Gagnon has his own clear vision of what American children should know and understand about world history: "What is the main story? It is not the parade of military, technological, and economic 'interactions,' or the endless comparisons among often incomparable centers of great power, that global studies dwell upon--although these must, of course, be taken into account. The big story is not the push to modernize but the struggle to civilize, to curb the bestial side of human nature. . . . For our time, the first lesson to be learned from world history, the most compelling story, is the age-old struggle of people within each culture to limit aggression and greed, to nourish the better side of human nature, to apply morality and law, to keep the peace and render justice."
It seems to me that Dr. Gagnon's precommitments in relation to world history teaching are different indeed from the conceptions that underlay the drafting of the national standards. The standards writers in general saw their mission as setting forth guidelines with which teachers and students might grapple with processes of change across the long sweep of human history, leading, it would be hoped, to their greater understanding of how the world got to be the way it is. This study, it was assumed, must include close attention to cultural, social, economic, technological, epidemiological, and other types of change, as well as political and intellectual. Teaching examples accompanying the standards do encourage classrooms to wrestle with tough political, moral, and ethical issues but that the primary aim of the standards is to engage students in the drama of the past and nourish their historical thinking skills. Dr. Gagnon's view of world history in the schools seems to me to be much more text oriented--9th and 10th graders meditating on the workings of good and evil in past times and deriving moral lessons from this study that will help shape "democratic citizens." Dr. Gagnon thinks all major civilizations shoud be included in the curriculum, not just the West, but that it is the enduring ideas and ideologies of these civilizations -- exposited in great texts -- that must be examined closely. This sort of study, he seems to be saying, should take precedence over the study of the complex variety of the patterns of change.
I would like to know how others respond to this article.
Author: H-Net Central: Humanities On-Line Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:58:51 -0800
NEW YORK TIMES April 3, 1996
c.1996 N.Y. Times News Service; fair use reprint for non-profit
educational comment only.
"Revised History Standards Defuse Explosive Issues"
By JO THOMAS
[excerpts]
Proposed standards for teaching history to American schoolchildren, which came under furious attack from conservatives when they were published last year, are being re-issued Wednesday in a revised form that omits their most criticized feature: the examples of classroom activities.
With the old version condemned as giving short shrift to figures and events that have traditionally been emphasized, the new version adds material like a more detailed treatment of the Declaration of Independence and the role of George Washington, and a continuing emphasis on the role of science, mathematics, medicine and technology. It adds a consideration of the motivation for migration to North America from Europe in the colonial era, and incorporates specific acknowledgments of the positive aspects of agricultural and industrial modernization.
Here and there, wording that some found objectionable has been omitted. Students are no longer asked to evaluate ``why the Republican Party abandoned African-Americans in the South'' during Reconstruction. Instead, they are asked to ``analyze how shared values of the North and South limited support for social and racial democratization.'' The new standards, which are the product of months of review and study by historians and teachers, are being issued by the National Center for History in the Schools at the University of California at Los Angeles. They combine into one volume the standards for United States and world history from kindergarten through high school, originally published in three separate volumes.
The teaching examples will be published separately next summer as classroom aids, without the stamp of being national standards.
Christopher T. Cross, president of the Council for Basic Education, a national nonprofit group that promotes the teaching of basic subjects, praised the revised standards Tuesday as ``an excellent blueprint for coverage of material in U.S. and world history.''
The council, with financing from the Pew Charitable Trust, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Spencer Foundation commissioned two independent panels of historians, teachers and school administrators last June to study the standards. Many of the changes they proposed have been taken into account in the new version.
The council recommended dispensing with the teaching examples that had been the target of much of the criticism. In doing so, it recognized that many of the examples were excellent, like one inviting high school students ``analyze within its historical context the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan,'' taking into account the Allied military position in the Pacific in 1945, estimated military and civilian casualties in a prolonged war, long-term consequences as understood in 1945, Japanese surrender overtures and the probability of Soviet entry into the war.
But now and then, students would be invited ``to make facile moral judgments,'' it said, citing a classroom teaching example that suggested that students ``conduct a trial of John D. Rockefeller'' on a charge of participating in unethical and amoral business practices designed to undermine fair competition. The standards had come under the harshest attack from Lynne Cheney, chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Humanities in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, who said the American history standards presented a warped view, ignoring the nation's white, male heroes. She said the document contained 17 references to the Ku Klux Klan and 19 to McCarthyism but none to Paul Revere or Thomas A. Edison.
In appraising the history standards, the independent panels told the Council on Basic Education that dispensing with the teaching examples would ``eliminate many of the problems related to the absence or presence of individual names, since the standards themselves name relatively few historical figures.'' ``The teaching of history within the general frame proposed by the standards will necessarily include examples of individuals with varying degrees of influence on the events of their own time,'' the panels noted. ``But it is not the job of the standards to provide a list.''
The council said states, districts, professional organizations and others should develop examples for teachers as a separate supplement to revised history standards. ``There will always be conflicting interpretations about the meaning of history,'' it said. ``In history, no historian, no book - not even proposed national standards - ever has the final word.''
Joyce Appleby, a professor of history at UCLA and president-elect of the American Historical Association, said Tuesday: ``My impression, from talking to teachers, is that they're dying of thirst for some guidance and some knowledge of the scholarship of the last 20 or 30 years which has enriched our understanding. This needs to get into the classroom.'' Ms. Appleby said she viewed the revised standards as an improvement, but added: ``I was very pleased with the original one. Lynne Cheney is not a professional historian. You couldn't name more than five historians who would criticize them.''
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 4/3/96 p. A14
Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.; fair use reprint for
non-profit educational comment only.
"The New, Improved History Standards"
By Diane Ravitch and Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
[excerpts]
In response to the recommendations, the UCLA center recast the standards, removing every legitimate cause for complaint The original documents had set forth 31 basic standards and about 2,500 illustrative teaching examples. Most of the criticism was directed at the teaching examples, too many of which were politically biased, moralistic and judgmental. All teaching examples have now been eliminated, which has had the additional benefit of slimming the standards down to only 200 pages from 600. Out went references to the grandeur of Mansa Musa and the fabled wealth of Mali; out went numerous references to the Ku Klux Klan; out went the excessive focus on Sen. Joseph McCarthy. Out, indeed, went references to obscure people whose main credential seemed to be that they were not dead white males. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are now the subject of a major standard, and America's developing democratic tradition, the movement from exclusion to inclusion, have become continuing themes throughout the standards. While attention is rightly directed to our nation's troubled history of racial, ethnic and religious tension, these issues are now placed within the context of the nation's continuing quest to make our practices conform to our ideals.
The revised standards call attention to the rise of individualism, the development of representative government, and the importance of the Enlightenment in shaping America. An entirely new standard calls for study of science and technology and their role in revolutionizing American life. Some critics originally were concerned that students might regard Europeans as the only people who ever engaged in the slave trade. The revised standards now refer to the varieties of slavery practiced by Africans and their role in delivering slaves to the Atlantic passage. The Westward movement in American history, previously ascribed to the greed and rapacity of "restless white Americans," is now undertaken by Americans animated not only by land hunger and "the ideology of Manifest Destiny," but by "the optimism that anything was possible with imagination, hard work, and the maximum freedom of the individual." There is no glossing over the Mexican-American War or the brutal treatment of American Indians, but the overall picture raises fair questions instead of offering questionable moral judgments. Critics correctly complained about the earlier references to "the American peoples," noting that the U.S. Constitution speaks of "We, the people," not "We, the peoples." Happily, such usages are gone.
The original description of the Cold War as "swordplay" between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. drew the wrath of critics. Not only is the objectionable word gone, but so is the implication that the U.S. was somehow largely responsible for the Cold War. Now the origins of the Cold War are correctly related to the "messianic nature or Soviet communism . . . Stalin's collectivization of agriculture, and the great purges of the 1930s." Even more startling is the change of focus related to Sen. McCarthy. In the earlier version, one standard heralded his rise and another marked his fall. Now the senator rises and falls in a single standard, and only after students have learned about "the relationship between post-war Soviet espionage and the emergence of internal security and loyalty programs under Truman and Eisenhower." For those who complained about political bias, all complimentary and derogatory language previously used to describe 20th century American presidents has been deleted. Instead, the programs and policies of various eras and presidencies are described in neutral language. After our own careful review, we are impressed by the revised history standards. They are rigorous, honest, and as nearly accurate as any group of historians could make them. They do not take sides, and they pose the most fundamental questions about our nation's history. In our judgment, they will make a solid contribution to the improvement of history education in American schools.
We hope that critics of the original version will declare victory and lay down their rhetorical weapons, as we have done. Any fairminded reviewer must conclude that everything objectionable in the original documents has been excised. What remains is a challenge to enlightened teaching. Let us hope that teachers and their students will meet the challenge....
The Los Angeles Times 4/3/96 p A-1
Copyright 1996 Times Mirror Company; fair use reprint for nonprofit
educational comment only
by ELAINE WOO, TIMES EDUCATION WRITER [excerpts]
Not all of the critics are satisfied, however. Lynne Cheney, the former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities who led the charge against the standards, said the revised version still editorializes on American history. "It's better," she said, "but I don't think of it as a model for what we should be teaching in our schools." The standards, four years in the making, have been front and center in the culture wars, accused of pandering to liberal viewpoints and committing sins of omission--including, by one accounting, six mentions of Harriet Tubman but none of Paul Revere. Last week they were assailed in the conservative magazine National Review for referring to "American peoples" instead of just the American people--a swipe at the standards' attempt to present a broader view of history as including the contributions of minorities. Even President Clinton, in a speech last Wednesday to the nation's governors, called the national history standards a failure. Joyce Appleby, president-elect of the American Historical Assn. and professor of history at UCLA, said the furor has been not so much about conflicting versions of history as about new ideas on how history should be taught. "This [debate] is about the politics of nostalgia," she said. "It's not a case of people who felt history was changed so much as people feeling the way they had been taught history was changed. "Most people are not aware of the enormous amount of scholarship done in American history and world history over the last 30 years. The richness of this scholarship has been slow getting into the classroom and textbooks. The standards do a marvelous job of bringing this new scholarship in. It's brought in women, ordinary people, laborers, immigrants." The history standards were part of a national effort set in motion by President Bush seven years ago to raise the academic achievement of American school children. National education organizations were enlisted to draft standards for a dozen core subjects, including math, science, English and civics. None has attracted as much controversy as the American history standards. One of the main concerns had been the standards' failure to present a complete picture of American history, slighting in particular "such presences as [George] Washington and [Thomas] Jefferson and seminal documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution." * * * Now those documents are explicitly mentioned in one of the 70 standards. The standard previously had addressed the "institutions and practices of government created during the Revolution and how they were revised between 1787 and 1815 to create the foundation of the American political system." The words "based on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights" were added to the end of the statement. "Now it's doubly clear," said Gary Nash, co-director with Charlotte Crabtree of the National Center for History in the Schools at UCLA, which coordinated the standards project. The review panels also had found instances of loaded or inconsistent language that could "direct students to biased conclusions." They were troubled by differences in language used to describe the Kennedy and Johnson eras and the Coolidge and Hoover years, for example, finding the first two portrayed with such positive terms as "accomplishments" and "legacy" and the latter two in more negative terms, such as "trickle down" to describe the economic policies of the Coolidge years. In the new version, more neutral terms have replaced the biased language. The "domestic accomplishments" of Kennedy's New Frontier program have become simply the "domestic policies" of the New Frontier. Cheney, who helped fund the development of the history standards when she was a member of the Bush administration, still takes issue with the standards, however. Her main objection, she said in an interview Tuesday, is that they still contain passages that slant the discussion of important events. One sore spot, in Cheney's view, comes in the American history standards, in a statement that the Great Depression ranks with the American Revolution as "one of the great shaping experiences of American history." "That is a highly debatable point. I certainly disagree with it," said Cheney, who started the debate over national standards two years ago. "I'm not suggesting that my view is the one that every schoolkid should learn. But the other side of the story is not even presented here."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]