|
|
|
| |
| Table of Contents |
Controversy Over The National History StandardsJoyce ApplebyReprinted from the OAH Magazine of History
|
|
| The controversy over the National Standards has thrown into high relief the process through which they were developed. Although Lynne V. Cheney has insisted repeatedly that they are the "UCLA Standards," nothing could be further from the truth. Teachers and scholars from all over the country participated in the creation of the books, and over thirty professional organizations, including the OAH, held one or two weekend meetings for focus groups to vet the various drafts through which the standards passed. Serving as a nexus for all this creative and reviewing activity was the National Council for History Standards composed of twenty-nine members and headed by the directors of the National Center for History in the Schools which is based at UCLA. The council acted as both a sounding board and gatekeeper for the developing of the standards. Meeting several times a year, members got together frequently enough to be well informed of their progress, yet far enough away from the day-to-day workings of the contributing groups to require formal presentations at each of its meetings. This had two advantages: it insured a good deal more council oversight than rubber stamping; and it provided the creators of the standards with regular occasions for casting into formal presentations exactly what they were doing at the time. As you would expect, a group composed of precollegiate teachers, history professors, and professional administrators had many diverging points of view to present. Deciding on the proper periodization consumed much of the council's time, as well it might when questions of emphasis, inclusion, and interpretation get packaged into whether to start the United States Standards before Columbus, at 1492, or at 1607! But the mix of the council proved synergistic. Primary and secondary teachers brought hands-on teaching experience to the deliberations, and the historians drew upon their research and writing to suggest and debate conceptual themes. Interestingly enough, when there were strong differences of opinion, the disputants did not divide along the occupational axis of K through 12 and higher education. The hottest issue confronting the council came when one of the reviewing groups, the American Historical Association, expressed the strong opinion that western civilization should not be privileged in the presentation of historical criteria--the fifteen historical criteria that were to undergird the structure and approach of the history standards. Opponents of this position stressed the particular grounding of American students in institutions of European origin. Since some schools have not yet developed world history courses and others resist its displacing western civilization, debates drew out the passionate convictions of council members, many of whom argued vigorously for a fresh approach to the history of the world which would highlight interactions, differences, and commonalities uncolored by the more traditional "rise of the West" orientation. Through several meetings it became clear that some members continued to feel strongly that the cultural heritage of the students should form the pivot for the course. Others contested that a true world history course should present the world independent of any situated knowledge from one of the many civilizations. In the end, council members compromised. Most of the time council members wrestled with problems of coverage and compression, selection and balance, content and presentations. Many of these sessions turned into intellectual feasts as different people brought forward their prize entries for our collective delectation. Confronting the need to establish priorities if selections were to be made on substantive grounds, members proved quite eloquent in defense of their choices. Against this background, it is easier to understand how demanding the standards are. Every body of scholarship had an ardent advocate arguing for its inclusion! Similarly lively were the discussions of how to make concrete the collective wisdom about historical thinking. Chapter two of each of the standards focussed upon the activities which constitute historical thinking. Making specific the component parts of a historian's way of knowing animated many council meetings as we were forced to explain patterns of thought that had become second nature to us. Looking back on the council meetings, it is clear that we did not anticipate the vociferous criticism or the angle of vision of our critics. Since the standards were intended to help teachers, not replicate the content of textbooks, it never occurred to anyone to consider whether or not Robert E. Lee had been mentioned by name or if George Washington had been identified as president of the United States. What did occupy our attention were the voice and tone of the "examples of student achievement." Not uniformly successful, we struggled nonetheless to avoid tendentious or telescoped questions in our efforts to suggest how teachers could use novels, journals, newspapers, biographies, poetry, cartoons, and films in history classrooms. Council votes were often delayed to provide time for reflection and consultation. Indeed, the thirty-month process through which the standards were created provides a model for consensus-building. If the standards prevail over their critics, as I think they will, it is because of their intrinsic strengths--bringing a generation of powerful scholarship into the classroom--and the love of history that animated the hundreds of contributors. |
||
| Joyce Appleby is a past president of the OAH and a professor of history at UCLA. |