The Growth of World History Education in the United States

*Some information confirmed via email with member of state Department of Education.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2000, 1998, 1994, 1990.

Source: AP Program Summary Report, 2002 http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/members/article/1,3046,152-171-0-22533,00.html.

Source: AP Program Summary Report, 2003 http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/members/article/1,3046,152-171-0-29472,00.html

Source: AP Examination Volume Changes (1994–2004) Personal Correspondence with Lawrence Beaberof ETS, September 22, 2004
Note: School data not available at the time wewere preparing this chart.

Note: Among the candidates excluded from the analysis were: 2 who reported a grade level of college; 2 who reported a grade level of other; and 455 who did not respond.

Note: Among the candidates excluded from the analysis were: 3 who reported a grade level of college; 8 who reported a grade level of other; and 1,090 who did not respond.

Note: Among the candidates excluded from the analysis were: 3 who reported a grade level of college; 8 who reported a grade level of other; and 1,090 who did not respond.

Patterns in World History Curricula

Issues and Options in Constructing a 12^thGrade World History NAEP

Option #1: Choose to assess one of the four different world history patterns

Option #2: Create an assessment that evaluates a cross-section of various models

Option #3: Table the decision temporarily, watching carefully the changes in world history education

Conclusion: A Call to Arms

Notes

^* The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) commissioned Bain to write an earlier version of this report which he presented to the Governing Board on May 14, 2004 in Denver, Colorado. NAGB is not responsible for, nor has necessarily endorsed any of the ideas expressed in this paper. We would also like to thank Ross Dunn, Mary Crovo, Susan Douglass, Ane Lindvendt, Lauren McArthur, Jeffrey Mirel, Diane Ravitch, and Peter Stearns who discussed these ideas with us or commented on a version of this paper. They, of course, bear no responsibility for our interpretation.

^1. The Secretary of Education appoints the 26 member National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), though NAGB is independent of the Department of Education. Congress established NAGB in 1988 with the National Educational Statistics Acts and reauthorized it in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. The Board consists of a bipartisan group of governors, state legislators, state and local school officials, public and private school educators, business leaders and members of the general public. NAGB defines policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Often called the "Nation's Report Card," NAEP is the only continuing, nationally representative assessment of what students in the United States know and can do in various subject areas. Since 1969, NAGB has periodically assessed reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts. In 2006, it will also assess economics. Over the last two years, NAGB has been debating the creation of a 12^thGrade NAEP in world history.

^2. For example see Ross E. Dunn, The New World History: A Teacher's Companion (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000); Paul Gagnon and The Bradley Commission on History, eds., Historical Literacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989); Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?: A Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature, 1st ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).

^3. As stated in its reauthorization in the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, NAGB's purpose is to provide "in a timely manner a fair and accurate measurement of student academic achievement and reporting trends in achievement" (PL-107-110,Sec. 602). Further, the Board is to "develop... assessment objectives and test specifications that produce an assessment that is valid and reliable, and are based on relevant widely accepted professional standards." Emphasis added (PL-107-110, Sec. 602).

^4. We have not been disinterested observers, but rather have been actively involved in world history education. A U.S. historian by training (Ph.D.), Bain taught high school world history in one form or another for 26 years. Further, he has participated in a number of world history related projects and research. For example, in 1994 Bain was a member of the Council for Basic Education's panel that reviewed the National World History Standards. He also was a member of the AP course development committee, recommending the course framework that College Board adopted for the AP World History program. Shreiner taught high school world history before returning to graduate school. As a high school teacher, she was solely responsible for creating her district's world history curriculum.

^5. Methodological Note: To write this paper, we used current state standards documents in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We also looked at legislative statutes in each state concerning graduation and course requirements. Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), these are in a more heightened state of flux. Therefore, we contacted state departments of education for corroborating information. Initially, we intended to look at certification requirements for world history teaching across the states, but halted that process as NCLB has made credentials even more unsettled than standards and testing. Finally, we only cast a cursory eye at world history textbooks. While this might be a fruitful investigation to ascertain the state of World History, our focus was on "officially" adopted standards and curriculum.

^6. Also see, for example, Ane Lintvedt, The Demography of World History in the United States (November 2003 [cited December 1, 2003 2003]); available from www.worldhistoryconnected.org/1.1/lintvedt.html. and Jonathan Burack, "The Student, the World, and the Global Education Ideology," in Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?, ed. James Leming, Lucien Ellington, and Kathleen Porter (2003).

^7. In a number of cases, state officials told us that world history was required for graduation, yet we could not find corroboration within statute. Occasionally, we found a note on a state's website that said change in a state's graduation requirements was pending. In Chart 1, we used at least two corroborating pieces of evidence before determining if world history was or was not a graduation requirement.

^8. Thanks to Lauren McArthur for calling the Ann Arbor and Detroit requirements to our attention.

^9. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The 1998 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1998, 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates, NCES 2001-498, by Stephen Roey, Nancy Caldwell, Keith Rust, Eyal Blumstein, Tom Krenzke, Stan Legum, Judy Kuhn, Mark Waksberg, and Jacqueline Haynes. Project Officer, Janis Brown. Washington, DC: 2001: a-207; The 2000 High School Transcript Study, National Center for Education Statistics

^10. National Center for History in the Schools. National Standards for History: Basic Edition. Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools, 1996.

^11. Ross E. Dunn, Introduction: Contending Definitions of World History: Which One Should We Choose for the Classroom? (151) [url] (American Forum of Global Education, 1999 [cited April 18, 2004 2004]); available from http://www.globaled.org/issues/151/.

^12. Dunn goes on to argue that the range of world history models is evidence that there is no "dogmatic consensus to official narratives." However, not everyone agrees with this description. Burack (2003) argues that a "global education ideology has taken hold in social studies education" suggesting that dogma does indeed shape world history education. Our review of world history standards in the states and AP World History did not find the prevalence of any particular approach or stance, which as we will argue challenges the creation of a NAEP framework. However, it is important to remember that we did not review world history textbooks, where one might be more likely to find such a stance.

^13. Dunn calls his models the Western Heritage Model, Different Cultures Model, Contemporary Studies Model and Patterns of Change. While our review of state standards and AP course materials also suggests four patterns, they differ from the way Dunn describes the curricular topography.

^14. National Council for the Social Studies, Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies,Bulletin / National Council for the Social Studies; 89 (Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1994).

^15. Often specific content is found in supporting documents, not voted upon by state boards, but given as guidance to teachers who must teach the specifics that give meaning to large themes.

^16. Of the 53 Michigan benchmarks for social studies, only 5 mention world history, while 18 specify Michigan history and 19 U.S. history. We are grateful to Lauren McArthur for pointing out this fact.

^17. For example, to integrate its history, geography, civics and economics standards into one course, the state of Washington recently created a separate world history framework that reflects the Global World History pattern. See <www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/SocStudies/frameworks.aspx>.

^18. AP World History Acorn Book, May 2004, 2005, pg. 7. For a more extensive discussion of the unique features of this approach to world history see Robert B. Bain, "AP World History Habits of Mind: Reflecting on World History's Unique Challenge to Students' Thinking" in Teacher's Guide: AP World History, edited by Joan Arno, 237–43. Princeton, NJ.: College Entrance Examination Board, 2000.

^19. The eras studied in AP World History are: Foundations-600 C.E.; 600 – 1450; 1450–1750; 1750–1914; and 1914-present. The themes studied in AP World History are key themes that cut across any single civilization or society: patterns and impacts of interactions among major societies, (e.g. trade, war, diplomacy); impact of technology and demography on people; comparing features of social and gender structure systems within and among societies; culture and intellectual interactions; and changes in functions and structures of states. AP World History also studies major civilizations in Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe.

^20. AP World History Acorn Book, pg. 6.

^21. The state of Washington recently created a world history framework that uses features of a Global World History pattern to integrate its economics, civics, geography and history standards, a potentially useful way to defragment social studies. See <www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/SocStudies/frameworks.aspx>.

^22. Robert Bain and Jeffrey Mirel,"Reviving Standards-Based Reform: A Look at Teaching History." The College Board Review 198 (2003): 21–27.

^23. For example, the National Standards in History essentially ignored assessment issues. There is little guidance given in theStandards for the design and implementation of assessing the standards. This is dramatically different from the careful attention reformers gave to assessment in Great Britain's School Council's Project. For example, see Alaric K. Dickinson, "Assessment, Examinations and Historical Understanding." In Learning History, edited by Alaric K. Dickinson, Peter J. Lee and Peter .J. Rogers (London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1984): 187–209; or Peter Seixas, "When Psychologists Discuss Historical Thinking: A Historian's Perspective." Educational Psychologist 29, no. 2 (1994): 107–09.

^24. Theodore Rabb. What Happened to Historical Literacy? In Chronicle of Higher Education, v. 50:39, http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i39/39b02401.htm. (accessed June 7, 2004).

^25. For a provocative and thought-provoking discussion of issues in assessing history, see Sam Wineburg, "Crazy for History." The Journal of American History 90, no. 4 (2004): 1401–14.

^26. The work of Sam Wineburg and Eva Baker come immediately to mind.

^27. Data gathered from Department of Education websites, relevant legislation and correspondence with state departments of education. The data is constantly changing as states modify their standards, assessments and requirements. We settled discrepancies through email contact with state officials.

^28. In classifying state standards, we looked for evidence of the salient features of the Social Studies, Western Civilization Plus, Regional/Geographic, and Global World History patterns within the state documents. Often, a state organized its standards using one pattern, but provided another document suggesting a second pattern. In such cases, we checked off two columns in this chart. In trying to decide when to classify a state as Western Civilization Plus or Global World History, we used three criteria: (1) Evidence of the Western Civilization narrative and chronological structure; (2) Percentage of content inside and outside of Europe; (3) Evidence of trans-regional and comparative benchmarks.

^29. Iowa did not have state standards in history or social studies. Chapter 12 of the Iowa Administrative Code, 12.8 (1) (c) (2) states, "The board shall adopt clear, rigorous, and challenging content standards and benchmarks in reading, mathematics, and science to guide the learning of students from the date of school entrance until high school graduation. Standards and benchmarks may be adopted for other curriculum areas defined in 281—Chapter 12, Division V" (emphasis added). That section of the Iowa code says that social studies instruction "shall include citizenship education, history, and the social sciences. Instruction shall encompass the history of the United States and the history and cultures of other peoples and nations including the analysis of persons, events, issues, and historical evidence reflecting time, change, and cause and effect."

^30. Massachusetts organizes their standards both chronologically and regionally, lending to our geographic/regional label. At the same time, on the emphasis appears to be on Western Civilization as teachers are asked to prioritize events and ideas in world history that have contributed to American democracy.

^31. The Mississippi standards are clearly social studies, though the sample lesson plans imply western civilization focus. We did not see sample lesson plans, however, as adequate reason to assign a western civilization plus label.

^32. Nevada provided content materials for the standards that we used for this designation.

^33. The content guidelines in the New York standards have elements of a geographic/regional approach because they suggest that teachers and students should look at the history and geography of world regions separately.

^34. While the North Carolina reflects the NCSS pattern, they also provide specific objectives for world history with heavy stress on western civilization. The introduction to the world history standards states that these standards concentrate on "civilizations that have shaped the development of the United States."

^35. Pennsylvania's standards show social studies influence, but the state also provides a world history guide that we evaluated as reflecting the Global World History pattern.

^36. Rhode Island provides standards outlines, rather than a state-wide curricular model. In its guide, Rhode Island used the outline of the National Standards for World History, which is the reason we categorized their standards as Global World History.

^37. Within its social studies framework, South Carolina provided specific content that reflected the Western Civilization Plus pattern.

^38. Washington's standards are clearly Social Studies. However, the state recently created a framework for world history that utilized a modified Global World History pattern to organize the other standards.

References