Controversy Over The National History Standards

Abstract

oped. Although Lynne V. Cheney has in sisted 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 com posed 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 stamp ing; 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 com posed of precollegiate teachers, history pro fessors, and professional administrators had many diverging points of view to present. Deciding on the proper periodization con sumed much of the council's time, as well it might when questions of emphasis, inclu sion, 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 teach ing experience to the deliberations, and the historians drew upon their research and writing to suggest and debate conceptual themes. Inter estingly enough, when there were strong differ ences of opinion, the disputants did not divide along the occupational axis of K through 12 and higher education. The hottest issue confronting the coun cil came when one of the reviewing groups, the American Historical Association, ex pressed the strong opinion that western civi lization should not be privileged in the presentation of historical criteria?the fif teen historical criteria that were to undergird the structure and approach of the history standards. Opponents of this position stressed the particular grounding of American stu dents 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