The new curriculum clearly seeks to raise the quality of world history instruction by emphasizing in-depth knowledge over "coverage" for its own sake. Equally clearly, it seeks to present history as more than just "names and dates," and to encourage students to approach the past as historians do: as a complex picture that must be reconstructed by considering a variety of sources. These are laudable goals, and well worth pursuing.
The draft world history standards under review here are a significant step toward these goals. The standards for grades 6 and 7, dealing with world history before 1500 CE, are well-structured and highly polished. The standards for high school, dealing with world history after 1500 CE, are more problematic. They are weakened both by three major, systemic problems with their coverage that would seriously compromise students' ability to succeed in college-level world history courses.
Section II of this review discusses the major problems with the high school standards. Section III summarizes the reviewers' editorial comments on individual standards.
1. Over-Emphasis on Western
Societies
The post-1500 (high school) sections spend a disproportionate time on the West and far too often treat non-Western societies only when the West is colonizing or fighting with them.
For example:
Standards WH1-WH10 cover the years 1500-1900. Half of them (WH4-7 & WH9) are devoted entirely to developments within Europe. Non-Western societies appear in the other half almost exclusively as trading partners or objects of conquest and colonization. The only references to developments within these societies are WH3a-c ("describe the Ottoman/Mughal/Chinese empire") and WH7e ("explain the nature of the Latin American wars of independence").
The decline of China and concurrent rise of Japan as the dominant political, military, and cultural force in East Asia (1850-1930) is reduced to a brief reference to the Meiji restoration and scene-setting for World War II and the rise of Mao Zedong.
Three battles and four military leaders are mentioned by name in the standard covering World War II (WH13). None are from the Eastern (Russian) or China-Burma-India theaters of war.
The 1947 partition of Palestine by the UN, and the subsequent formation of the state of Israel have an entire standard devoted to them. The 1947 partition of India by the British and the subsequent formation of the state of Pakistan receive no attention at all.
Coverage of the modern Middle East focuses explicitly on the Gulf War of 1991, but says nothing about the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980sÑa critical event for the region, but less so for Western nations.
The rise of Europe (and Europeanized states such as Japan and the US) is clearly one of the major themes of post-1500 world history. It should not, however, be the only major theme.
2. Over-Emphasis on
Political/Economic History
The post-1500 sections of the curriculum than cover political historyÑespecially the internal political development of EuropeÑin extensive and intricate detail. Coverage of social, intellectual, cultural, and environmental history is narrow, spotty, and idiosyncratic by comparison. For example:
A single standard covering the (first) Industrial Revolution is the only sustained reference to technology. The impact of firearms on European imperialism; of the machine gun, submarine and bomber on 20C warfare; of telecommunications on international relations; and of cheap printing on literacy, are absent,
A single standard covering the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment is the only in-depth reference to ideas other than political theory. Even nationalism, one of the key political ideas of the post-1800 era, is never treated as an idea.
Epidemic diseases (smallpox, syphilis, flu, AIDs) receive no specific attention at all, even in the context of the Columbian Exchange, of which they were a major component.
Environmental changes
associated with industrialization and global tradeÑ
"dirty" industries in developing countries; deforestation and soil
exhaustion in the tropics; irrigation and flood control;
"monoculture" farmingÑare never covered.
"Ordinary people" enter the curriculum almost solely as (implied) participants in political movements or as (mass) casualties in wars. Sweeping changes in the fabric of everyday lifeÑliteracy, public health, universal education, religious fundamentalism (and ecumenicalism), life expectancy, material culture, mass entertainmentÑare absent.
These themes are critical to an understanding of post-1500 world history and of the increasingly interconnected world of the 21C. It is comparatively unimportant what topics (among the many listed above) are used to illustrate the themes. It is extremely important, however, that the themes are given serious and explicit attention.
3. Uneven Treatment of
the United States
World history places the actions of the United States in a global perspective. It offers students an "external" perspective on their country different from, but complementary to, the "internal" perspective offered in US history courses. The post-1500 section of this curriculum, however, avoids all discussion of the United States in a variety of areas where such discussion would seem natural.
For example:
The US "pacification" of the Plains Indians in 1860-1890, which was both contemporary with and parallel to European actions in Africa and Australia, is omitted entirely from standard WH10.
The competition for colonies in Asia (as markets and sources of raw materials) mentioned in WH10 is presented as a purely European phenomenon, despite the fact that the United States was a major force in the "opening" of China and Japan and was itself a major colonial power (Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, etc.)
A century-and-a-half of US military and diplomatic intervention in Latin American and Caribbean nations (Haiti, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Mexico, Chile) is reduced to a single mention of the Cuban Missile crisis.
The role of US oil interests (along with British, French, and Russian ones) in shaping the modern Middle East receives no attention at all, despite it significance in the histories of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and the Gulf states.
The principal references to the United States in these standards (in the context of democratic revolutions, World Wars I & II, and the Cold War) are unquestionably important and fully justified. Nevertheless, the pattern of inclusion and omission creates the appearance of whitewashing, and the impression that events reflecting poorly on the United States have been systematically glossed over.
.
WH1, task F: The phrase "technological and scientific exchanges" is extremely unclear. Also, the Scientific Revolution did not begin at all until the 1540s, nor in earnest until the 1570s.
WH2: The phrase "European Age of Discovery and Expansion into the Americas, Africa and Asia" (and much of the rest of the standard) implies a commonality of European experience in the Old and New worlds that did not exist. Through 1750, the European presence in Asia and Africa was numerically small, geographically limited, and culturally isolated.
WH2d, and tasks E & F: It is essential that students understand the "Columbian Exchange" as an exchange of diseases as well as food crops and animals. Doing so honestly will require at least a brief reference to syphilis (the "AIDs of the 16C?").
WH2g: "role of the improvements" should read "role of improvements," Also, using itÕs unclear whether the standard is meant to cover only transport and navigation (the three-mast sailing ship, compass, stern-post rudder) or also military technology (horses, guns).
WH2, task H: This task would also lend itself well to a graphic project; either way, it needs to clarify that Europeans, Native Americans, and Africans all acted as both donors and recipients in the cultural exchange ("diffusion" implies one-way travel).
WH3: The "describing" needs to focus explicitly on global trade and its impactÑnew products, new ideas, new wealth. Also, students should be reminded that extensive trade networks existed within the Old World well before 1500 CE.
WH4 & 5: These standards could be condensed, and collapsed into a single standard, without any significant loss of understanding. Task A of WH4, with its emphasis on process over chronology, is an excellent model for rewriting them.
WH6a: Particularly in this period "the scientific method" is a misleading term; Bacon, Newton, and Descartes proposed and applied radically different methods of learning about the natural world. Suggestion: Omit reference to "the scientific method" and refer specifically to the use of mathematics and experiments in science.
WH6c: This seems redundant in light of WH6b.
WH6, task A: This is an inspired assignment, but care should be taken to compare apples to apples. Asking whether Galileo or Locke made the greater contribution is like asking whether Michael Jordan or Greg Maddux is the greater athlete.
WH7: This standard will be stronger if the heavy emphasis on chronology in present in points a-f is downplayed in favor of the emphasis on themes (democracy, revolution) present in tasks A-H.
WH8a: This is really two subtopics that would be better served if separated. Maybe something like: a) "Describe how technological breakthroughs and commercial interests led to the rise of the factory system;" and b) "Citing the key features of the factory system, explain how they changed the environment, the cities, and the lives of workers."
WH8b & task D: Capitalism has been the "dominant economic pattern" in Europe for centuries by this point . . . industrialization modified it, but did not create it. If the goal is to get students to think about the shift from decentralized to centralized production, or from local/regional to national/international markets, then say so!
WH8, task G: This is a wonderful idea, but it does create the impression that mid-19C British factory workers were uniformly literate . . .
WH9: This would be an excellent place to introduce the idea of nationalismÑmaybe the most influential political idea of the 19C. It would set up important developments in the 20C and provide a thematic "hook" on which to hang Germany and Italy.
WH10: See comments in Section II, above.
WH10, task C: If this assignment is to have much pedagogical value, it should emphasize that the newspaper is written from the locals' perspective (not that of the Europeans or an omniscient 3rd-person observer).
WH10, task D: This is a great idea, but it belongs in the post-1945 era, during the struggle for independence or its immediate aftermath.
WH11g: "The nature of war" is extremely vague . . . "changes in the nature of war" would be clearer, and point to issues like the killing power of modern guns (rifles that fired 10 shots/minute in 1915 vs. 2 shots/minute in 1815), the replacement of horses with mechanized cavalry, the first use of gas, and the first deliberate targeting of civilians in centuries (submarines, aerial bombing).
WH11g: The contributions of colonial peoples (don't overlook the British sacrifice of the Australians at Gallipoli, just because they were white!) to the war is worthy of attention . . . but why not fold it into the colonial independence movements of the 1920s and 1930s, which is where it "came home to roost?"
WH11, task A(i): Is the speech by a specific world leader, or a generic one?
WH11, task A(ii): A headline seems like an awkward medium for this (even in 1917, the heyday of three-tier headlines). Perhaps a short message by Wilson explaining to his supporters why the "peace candidate" of 1916 had brought the US into the war less than 6 months after the election?
WH11, task E: Why not an editorial by a French/British/American newspaper criticizing or defending the treatment of Germany by the Versailles treaty (there was, certainly, difference of opinion among the Allies on this topic!)?
WH12b: Introducing the rise of Japan here makes no chronological sense. It belongs (chronologically and thematically) in WH9 alongside the rise of Bismarck's Germany. Instead, why not talk here about the disintegration of China into civil war and the rise of Gandhi's independence movement in India. Surely the internal struggles of four major Asian powers makes a coherent standard.
WH12, task B: Is the letter to Balfour being written before or after his declaration? Either way is fine, but it matters enormously.
WH13f: See comments in Section II, above. Also, why not choose military leaders who would underscore the technological and tactical innovations present in the war? I'd propose the following list of five: Douglas MacArthur (amphibious assault), Georgi Zhukov (combined arms), Karl Dšnitz (submarines), Isoroku Yamamoto (aircraft carriers), and Arthur Harris (bombers). [That's one from each of the five major combatant nations; if preferred, substitute Rommel or Patton for Zhukov; Halsey or Nimitz for Yamamoto; Spaatz or LeMay for Harris].
WH13-16, task H: ItÕs not clear whether the student is writing to Truman before or after the first use of the atomic bomb . . . whether the context is the end of WWII or the beginning of the Cold War.
WH13-16, task I: As presented, this task has a kitchen-sink feel. More structure would helpÑperhaps ask students to imagine themselves as an advisor and prepare a prioritized "To Do" list for their boss (Truman, Churchill, or Stalin) to act on "when the war ends next week."
WH14: Suggest adding (c), which would be something like: "The unraveling [or weakening] of European empires.
WH17c: The arms race and arms control agreements ("IBM treaty" should read "ABM treaty"), and the impact of nuclear weapons (especially ICBMs) on superpower relations should be untangled from this and made WH17e.
WH17c: This treatment of the Cold War ends (except for a single reference to Afghanistan) in 1972. It should call at least some attention to the revival of the CW in the 1980s under Reagan and Andropov (including US intervention in Latin America).
WH17, task A: It might be useful to ask students to distinguish between NATO/Warsaw Pact allies and more distant "client states."
WH17, task B: There's an awful lot of Truman and Stalin and 1948-52 in this standard already; why not Krushchev and Eisenhower (or Kennedy, or even VP Nixon)?
WH19: This entire standard feels over-large, vague, and unwieldy. It is also completely ahistorical. It reads more like middle-school (or upper elementary-school) geography than like high school world historyÑa sense that the suggested tasks firmly reinforce. It should be deleted, along with its Latin American equivalent (WH22), to make room for more relevant material.
WH20c&d: The phrase "in African" should read "in Africa" in both cases. Also: the "role of Apartheid" might be better put as "the effect of" or even "the rise and fall of" Apartheid.
WH20, task A: "Effectives" should read "effects."
WH20, task B: The contrast between "various Europeans points of view (plural)" and "the African point of view (singular)" invites precisely the kind of all-Africans-think-alike mentality that WH19 was trying to counteract.
WH21: Many of the problems faced by post-independence African countries (ethnic conflicts, ineffective leadership, corruption, foreign influence, production of only one or two products) are colonial influences. Cordoning off "colonial influences" as a separate-but-equal category implies that they aren't, and thus that they are (by process of elimination) either innate or the "fault" of the Africans themselves. This invites blame-the-victim analysis.
WH22: See comments for WH19.
WH23: See comments in Section II, above. To treat political instability in Latin America without explicitly addressing the role of superpower intervention there is simply inconceivable. The careers of Castro, Allende, Ortega, etc. cannot be adequately understood in isolation from the acts of their superpower patrons/enemies.
WH23a: The use of "development" here is problematic, since it could imply either "continued evolution" or "coming into existence." The former is clearly what's implied, but a clearer statement would help.
WH23d: "Challenges faced by Latin American democracies" might be clearer.
WH24: This is important material, but it's a chronological mess. Nehru and Gandhi are post-WWI, Ho is post-WWII (driving out the French in '54 and taking up arms when the US reneges on the UN agreement for elections in '57). Nasser makes his biggest impact in 1956 . . . all of them need to be dealt with earlier.
WH25, task F: Distinguishing "perceptions" from "misperceptions" from "realities" requires a deep and sophisticated understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that 99 out of 100 American high school students simply do not have. Creating a news program is a great idea, but having it focus on the "issues" in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (Jewish settlements in the territories, Palestinian right of return, the role of Yasser Arafat, the status of East Jerusalem, etc.) is a far more realistic goal.
WH25, task G: "Peace process" a fairly specific phrase usually applied to post-Oslo negotiations between Israel and the PLO/Palestinian Authority. How relevant to it is US/Soviet aid during the Cold War, which ended two years before Oslo?
WH25, task H: Surely the Oslo Agreement should be included here as well as the Camp David Agreement?
WH26, task A: This is an excellent idea, but placing the fictional newspaper in 1990 makes virtually all of the material suggested for inclusion "old news" or incomprehensible. Why not set the newspaper in 1986?
WH27d: The Sunni-Shiite tension deserves specific mention here. The status of the Kurds deserves attention somewhere in this standard.
WH27, task C: Why research and write a paper on the Gulf War, which most US students are at least vaguely aware of, when a paper on the Iran-Iraq War would lead them into unknown territory? If a project on the Gulf War is desirable, why not write about it from the perspective of an Iraqi living in Baghdad during the air campaign, a Kuwaiti living under Iraqi occupation, or an Israeli living through the Scud attacks on Tel Aviv?
WH28-29: These standards are substantially ahistoricalÑmore relevant to a political science or economics course than to world history. The best approach would be to delete them, creating one or two standards in their place that dealt with post-Cold War issues such as: genocide (Bosnia, Rwanda); the economic renaissance on the Pacific Rim (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore); the formation and expansion of the EU; economic globalization and its discontents; etc.
WH30: This standard is inexplicably numbered WH24. Also, "global terrorism" is an unclear termÑwhat does it include? Al-Qaeda is obviously part of it, but what about Hammas, the IRA, and the Basque separatists (all operating against single countries)?
WH30, task D: This task is paired with standard WH30e, but there is no option for being the leader of an "other nation"Ñonly a leader of the US, the US-led NATO alliance, or the UN (in which the US is a major player with veto power). Why not also let the student be the president of Pakistan, or the head of the European Union?