---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 95 21:22:00 PST
From: Zeitlin, Maurice SOCIO <Zeitlin@soc.sscnet.ucla.edu>
FROM: Szelenyi, Ivan SOCIO
To: History and Social Studies Colleagues
From: Ross Dunn < rdunn@sciences.sdsu.edu>
San Diego State University
NATIONAL HISTORY STANDARDS
On January 19, I posted a report that the U.S. Senate enacted by
a vote of 99 to 1 a resolution calling on the National Education
Goals Panel (NEGP) and the National Education Standards and
Improvement Council (NESIC), which Pres. Clinton has not yet
appointed, to disapprove the National History Standards developed
under the supervision of the National Center for History in the
Schools. This resolution also read that "if the Department of
Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, or any
other Federal agency provides funds for the development of the
standards . . . the recipient of such funds should have a decent
respect for the contributions of western civilization, and United
States history, ideas, and institutions, to the increase of
freedom and prosperity around the world."
I have subsequently learned that the 99 to 1 vote against the
standards reflects in part a tactical move on the part of some
members of the Senate. Sen. Gorton (R., Washington) had proposed
an amendment to the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act instructing the
NEGP and NESIC to disapprove the standards. Some Senators argued
that such an amendment would constitute Congressional
interference in the work of these two bodies. Recognizing that
not enough votes could be mustered to defeat the amendment, these
Senators agreed to support a nonbinding resolution, thus
preventing the repudiation of the history standards from being
enacted into law. Prior to the vote Sen. Gorton and others made
speeches vigorously attacking the standards based on articles and
media commentary by Lynne Cheney and other conservatives. It is
unlikely that Senators who might have taken issue with these
attacks have made themselves familiar with the actual contents of
the standards books. Further Senate debate on this issue is
likely to come. And certainly we will be hearing from the House.
This Tuesday (Jan. 24) hearings will begin in the House regarding
abolishment of the NEH. Lynne Cheney will testify, and certainly
the history standards will be under discussion.
On Jan. 19 Sheldon Hackney, Chairman of the NEH, made a statement
that history professionals should welcome:
"It is completely inappropriate for the NEH to dictate, endorse
or dissent from any of the model national standards being
produced by various groups. Our role was to assist financially
in the nonpartisan process of developing some of those guidelines
for further public discussion, review, and ultimately decision by
state and local school authorities. I must say, in the case of
the History Standards, the way some people have politicized the
discussion is a real disservice to the nation; the discussion has
become more of a 'drive-by debate' than a thoughtful
consideration. School reform is much too important to be made a
hostage in the culture wars."
Remarks made by Sen. Gorton and others reflect a general line of
attack taken by Mrs. Cheney, John Fonte, and other critics. I
wrote the following in the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE (Dec. 7):
"Since the standards in fact manifest no serious evidence of
educational radicalism, the critics launched a campaign to
misrepresent them, manufacturing a scary, imaginary version of
the guidelines that does not remotely exist. These fictitious
'standards from hell' are made up of immense lists of names and
terms that kids are supposed to memorize. George Washington,
Einstein and the U.S. Constitution have been ruthlessly stricken
from the inventory; dozens of obscure female poets, medieval
African kings and degenerate rock stars have been added on. The
pragmatic veteran school teachers from around the country who
wrote the history standards would find this fabrication comical
if some respectable reporters and politicians were not taking it
so seriously."
I would like to give you a few examples of the approach Sen.
Gorton took in attacking the standards on the Senate floor:
Sen. Gorton: "What is a more important part of our Nation's
history for our children to study, George Washington or Bart
Simpson? Is it more important that they learn about Roseanne
Arnold, or how America defeated communism as the leader of the
free world?"
[The standards do not of course constitute a proto-textbook or
sets of extended didactic essays but rather topical guidelines
supported by hundreds of SUGGESTED classroom activities. The US
standards devote 22 pages to the "Revolution and the New Nation
(1754-1820s), a subject in which George Washington would
obviously figure prominently. Sen. Gorton's reference to Bart
Simpson and Rosanne Arnold is based on a single, four-line
suggested activity for grade 9-12 students under a sub-standard
encouraging students to "demonstrate understanding of
contemporary American culture." The activity suggests that
students "analyze the reflection of values in such popular TV
shows as Murphy Brown, Roseanne, . . . and the Simpsons. Compare
the depiction of values to those expressed in shows like Ozzie
and Harriet, The Honeymooners. . . ."]
Sen. Gorton: "The Constitution is not mentioned in the 31 core
standards. . . ."
[This is one of the more disingenuous charges. If pressed the
critics have admitted they mean that the WORD "constitution" does
not appear in the following major standard: "Students should
understand 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."
Under this major heading are four standards calling for extensive
study of the Continental Congress, the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, the Supreme Court, and other subjects.]
Sen. Gorton: "Thomas Edison . . . is not mentioned. Albert
Einstein . . . not mentioned."
[The thrust of this charge (and many others regarding historical
personalities not "mentioned" in the books) is that the standards
writers have suppressed such heros of our past for ideological
reasons. As it turns out, both these men are "mentioned" on p.
262 of the World History Standards, though in a historical
context, not as part of a list of names for students to memorize.
So no one has deleted them from our collective consciousness
after all! The U.S. standards, moreover, include the following
standard: "Explain how inventions, technological innovations,
and principles of scientific management transformed production
and work" in the 1920s.]
Sen. Gorton: "The world history standards fail to note that
although slavery ended in the West during the 19th century, at
the cost of the blood of hundreds of thousands of . . . the
intrusive European immigrants, slavery continues to exist today
as it has for millennia in the non-West. . . ."
[This charge is an example of the cultural essentializing that
has characterized much of the hostile commentary, as if the
criteria guiding the standards project called for comparing the
"sins" and "crimes" of the West and the "non-West." Do the
standards "fail to note" the abolition of slavery in the 19th
century? A world history standard reads in part "Demonstrate
understanding of the causes and consequences of the abolition of
the trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery by: Assessing the
relative importance of Enlightenment thought, Christian piety,
democratic revolutions, slave resistance, and changes in the
world economy in bringing about the abolition of the slave trade
and the emancipation of slaves in the Americas."]
It is of course far easier to make flip accusations about
the standards and to drop bombs on them than to explain in detail
their organization and content, the criteria guiding them, the
consensus-building process by which they were written, and so on.
But it is important that efforts continue to be made to resituate
2the discussion in a forum of reason and sanity.
BECAUSE OF THE SENATE ACTION AND FURTHER DEBATES AND
HEARINGS TO COME, I URGE HISTORY AND SOCIAL STUDIES PROFESSIONALS
TO CONTACT THEIR LAWMAKERS AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO SUPPORT SHELDON
HACKNEY'S APPEAL FOR A "THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION" OF THE HISTORY
STANDARDS. IF YOU HAVE READ THE STANDARDS, LET YOUR
REPRESENTATIVES KNOW YOUR VIEWS.
The National Center for History has received many requests
to make the standards available on-line. The Center is not
funded to do this at present, though the Dept. of Education has
indicated at various points that it would take responsibility for
that project. It seems unlikely that they will do so in the
present political climate. I will try in the next several days,
however, to get at least an outline of both the US and world
standards out to you.
I encourage you to forward this message to other lists and
to colleagues. I would also appreciate having the address for
the new high school history teachers list if someone would supply
it.
Ross Dunn
rdunn@sciences.sdsu.edu