Synopses of Reviews of Curriculum Standards
Synopsis: The Stealth Curriculum: Manipulating America’s History Teachers
Robert Morgan and Company
In order to provide some context, it is important to consider some concerns the authors of this report raise regarding the status of history teachers. Paraphrased, history teachers in primary and secondary education are commonly part of a cycle that enables publishers and private-interests groups to say what they want to say about historical events, through their publications and supplemental materials. Though history and social studies teachers may be educated in history courses, there are no guarantees that they have ever been history majors or scholars; and there are no guarantees they will be given the opportunity to teach within their own area(s) of expertise, once they leave university classrooms. In fact, schools of education may require history teachers to take more courses in education than courses in history—but that does not necessarily mean they are better educated or prepared to teach history.
For these reasons, history teachers often lack the historical knowledge—that is, knowledge gained in university courses led by true historians and scholars, rather than lead teachers of history and social studies curricula—needed to address complex, contemporary issues in the classroom. Subsequently, teachers looking for support begin to rely on supplementary materials and professional development workshops to help them understand things about which they’ve never received formal instruction; these supports are often provided by companies that recognize and exploit these shortcomings in their clients.
Teachers are then bombarded by information and supplies for sale, many of which they never have time to effectively examine. They are inundated with options and given little guidance, aside from state curricula guidelines—but most of the instructional options they encounter at this point appear to meet standard courses of study. Moreover, these materials are initially reviewed by the teachers who will be using them, not historians and scholars—teachers who knew so little about the topics in question that they went looking for support.
The impact of 9/11 on the role of the history teacher is one of the examples used throughout this report. Prior to 9/11 history education curricula in America paid little attention to the history of Islam, to on-going conflicts in the Middle Eastern regions of the world, and so forth. Obviously, 9/11 changed this—but despite the immediate need to be able to discuss factors surrounding this event, what had changed about teachers’ knowledge and preparation?
Most of the history teachers in our schools were educated in primarily Western-based history programs [a potential problem itself and a criticism acknowledged in the report]. So, when materials like The Arab World Studies Notebook are published, they receive recognition, regardless of whether or not they are accurate, because most teachers know too little about the Arab world to recognize inaccuracies. And so it goes…similar examples include the Holocaust and the African Slave Trade.
The stated purpose of this report is two-fold:
1. To point out the features of a number of manipulative supplemental resources for history and social studies teachers; and
2. To show how similarly manipulative professional development workshops propagate the distorted content and recommend teaching practices…influencing what teachers teach and what students learn (Stotsky, 2004, 14)
How do the materials in question accomplish this:
· They omit important details, often “pro-Western” ideas.
· They inflate the significance of minor historical events.
· They promote false historical analogies and inferences (e.g. American science brought about the Holocaust, because Hitler was interested in eugenics).
· They endorse unethical pedagogical practices (e.g. teachers who know little about the topic won’t pick up on the subtle agendas the companies/organizations prepare). The report talks about The Arab World Studies Notebook and its efforts to convince teachers that Muslim exploration and settlement of the New World preceded Columbus’. “The idea that English explorers met native Indian chiefs with Muslim names in the middle of the Northeast woodlands sounds almost like something a Hollywood writer dreamed up for a spoof” (Stotsky, 2004, 21). Yet teachers who attended trainings for this material were oblivious to the inaccuracy of the information, information that has since been denounced by Native Indian spokespersons for the Algonquin Nation as “nonsense” (Stotsky, 2004, 22).
Author’s recommendations:
- Preferred Strategies
1. Professional development in history and the social studies as now conceived should be defunded:
- Public agencies lack capacity to review all current history curriculum supplements and to monitor their providers’ workshops effectively
- Professional development programs and supplies are often planned and selected by educators who lack sufficient historical training, knowledge and academic background to do these things effectively
- It is apparent that teachers are likely to accept anything presented to them by individuals and companies that appear to have connections to experts and expert organizations (e.g. kit designed by a Stamford, Connecticut firm to accompany the movie Amistad, which promoted the movie as historically accurate)
- No data exists to demonstrate what history teachers learn at workshops
- Educational materials provided, in an effort to be fair, often prove to be bland and biased (e.g. texts that focus primarily on the cultural differences of groups, rather than the historical significance of their existence and the events that surrounded their cultures)
2. Continuing education for history teachers should take place under academic auspices (i.e. in unveristy courses taught by historians and scholars).
- Alternative Strategies:
1. Systematic research is needed on what history teachers learn from supplemental resources
2. History teachers should be able to report problems in supplemental resources
3. Standards should be formulated for evaluating instructional materials for history content
4. Standards are urgently need for evaluating the ethical dimensions of a learning activity
Stotsky, S. (2004). The Stealth Curriculum: Manipulating America’s History Teachers. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
2006 State of the State Standards
Kelly Batts
In August of 2006, The Fordham Foundation published, “2006 The State of the State Standards.” This 120 page document gives a brief overview of the history behind Standards-based Reform, beginning with The Coleman Report of 1966 and A Nation at Risk in 1983, then discussing the 1989 meeting with President Bush to develop national educational goals and the subsequent Goals 2000 Act and Improving American Schools Act. The basic assumption leading up to those two acts, were that children could attend school in America and that their school experience had very little to do with what they actually learned. After the national goals were developed and states began to respond with their own goals, the Fordham Foundation decided to read the English/Language Arts goals for each state and to rate their quality. In 1997 the Foundation published its first report of 28 school systems and only 5 emerged as having reasonably high marks. The next year the Foundation examined 4 other subjects and the results were just as dismal. Overall, states were given a “D-plus.” The Fordham Foundation’s analysis was echoed by other groups such as The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and The Council for Basic Education (CBE). When the Fordham Foundation’s 200 report was released, there were only modest improvements with an overall score of “C-minus.”
The Foundation supposed that having each state’s analysis reported in this way and giving specific suggestions for how those standards could be improved, would cause states to feel an urge towards improvement. Instead, from 2000 to 2006 there is still little to report in terms of improvement. The Foundation reports the “good news” that at least 27 states have revised their standards, but the “bad news” according to Fordham is that the standards are no better than they were. The biggest complaint by this organization is in the area of content. That single factor makes the gains reported by Fordham Foundation less impressive than other groups such as AFT.
In this 2006 report, North Carolina’s performance is grim. The average cumulative grade point average of students has reportedly dropped from 2.8 to 1.6 from 2000 to 2006. The overall grade given to North Carolina from the Fordham Foundation based on state standards analysis has also dropped from “B-minus” to “C-minus.” And, North Carolina’s ranking has dropped from 5th to 20th. The Fordham Report gives states a grade for each of the following subject areas: English, Math, Science, U.S. History, and World History. In those areas reported, North Carolina received the following grades and rationales for those grades:
English- B
This was the best score that North Carolina received. The standards are reportedly clear, concise, and measurable. The problem with English standards were what Fordham Foundation said was, “incoherent organization scheme.” They also lack content specificity. There are no key works, authors, or literary periods or traditions listed in the high school curriculum to guide the content of study. The Foundation was impressed by North Carolina’s clear objectives on vocabulary and reading comprehension skills and said that the standards show a clear increase in difficulty as students progress through the grades.
Math-C
Fordham Foundation was not impressed with the revisions of North Carolina’s math standards. Once again, they report lack of content focus, sighting no mention of long division, carrying, or borrowing. They also do not like the fact that the standards are heavy on the topic of technology and manipulatives, but weak on mathematical reasoning.
Science-B
The science standards have strength in being content heavy. The only complaint about this subject is the fact that the science process is overstated. Fordham Foundation suggests that North Carolina take out the process material, which would make it one of the leaders in state science standards.
U.S. History-F (ouch!)
There is much to say about the problems with the state science standards. The Foundation begins with the fact that “by design, North Carolina students are never taught the colonial period, the Revolution, or the ratification of the Constitution.” The basic complaint is that students are asked to do lots of comparing and contrasting or showing changes over time, but are not required to know any names, dates, places, and important events in history. The Foundation even states, “This is not a U.S. history education in any sense.”
World History-F (ouch again!)
The biggest critique of the World History standards is that they are taught based on regional and cultural context rather than chronologically. They also lack specificity and the Fordham Foundation states that this curriculum does more to “confuse students than enlighten them.”
Response to A Consumers’ Guide to High School History Textbooks by Diane Ravitch
Cara Ward & Lionel Kato
INTRODUCTION
This publication summarized the findings of a review of high school history textbooks. Based on previous surveys, 80-90% of American students read from their history textbook in class daily or weekly. This group of reviewers rated some of the most commonly used textbooks in the United States.
THE REVIEW PROCESS
Two panels of experts (historians, teacher educators, and teachers) were formed. Each panel reviewed six textbooks. One panel examined United States History textbooks. The other panel review World History textbooks.
The following were the United States history books that were examined:
(1) The American Journey
(2) American Nation
(3) History of a Free Nation
(4) America: Pathways to the Present
(5) The Americans
(6) The United States in the Twentieth Century
The following were the world history textbooks that were examined:
(1) Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction
(2) World History: Connections to Today
(3) World History: The Human Experience
(4) World History: Continuity and Change
(5) World History: People & Nations
(6) World History: The Human Odyssey
The textbooks were rated on the following criteria:
(1) Accuracy – Is the factual information correct?
(2) Context – Are readers able to understand the significance of historical events?
(3) Organization – Is the text coherent?
(4) Selection of Supporting Material – Is the text supplemented with interesting stories?
(5) Lack of Bias – Is their any political bias?
(6) Historical Logic – Is the text free of present depictions of history that can skew events?
(7) Literary Quality – Does the text engage the reader?
(8) Use of Primary Sources – Does the text include primary sources (photographs and other historical documents)?
(9) Historical Soundness – Is equal attention given to political, social, cultural, and economic history?
(11)Democratic Ideas – Does the text explain the development of democracy and human rights?
(12)Interest Level – Will students want to learn more about history after reading this book?
(13)Graphics – Do the graphics enhance the text?
The American Journey and American Nation received the highest scores.
FINDINGS
Overall scores (based on the 13 criteria) ranged from 50-78% satisfaction for United States history textbooks and 46-77% satisfaction for world history textbooks. One reviewer, Theodore Rabb called the review a “fairly dispiriting exercise” (page 20). The reviewers felt that many textbooks ignored content in “an ongoing effort to beguile its student consumers with a CNN Headline News-like pastiche of pictures, boxes, charts, extracts: anything to spare them the pain and suffering of being subjected to an extensive, substantive body of writing” (page 37). In other words, many of the textbooks focused so much on things besides the text that the writing was weak.
The reviewers also commented on the length of the textbooks, claiming that on average they were over 1000 pages and weighed 7 ½ pounds. They claimed that many books contained too much material making them “unwieldy.” Textbooks were filled with “bland themes and oceans of disconnected facts” (page 21). The format of many current textbooks makes the subject uninteresting for many students. The reviewers cited a number of criticisms including too much information, unequal treatment of historical events, incorrect interpretations of events, and more focus on graphics and other visuals instead of text. Overall, the reviewers were disappointed in the quality of all twelve of the books reviewed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The authors of the report made the following recommendations:
(1) There should be no more statewide textbook adoptions. Schools should be able to make decisions based on their specific needs.
(2) Textbooks should be reviewed regularly by outside agencies.