THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WORLD HISTORY COURSE IN U.S. SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1950s To The PRESENT

A paper presented at the HTAA Conference
Sydney, Australia
July 5, 2010
Dr. Mel Maskin
Fordham University

INTRODUCTION

Each of the post-World War II  World History curricula that I will consider today will be examined within the context of its own specific trajectory. What existed at the beginning of the time period? What was the rationale for each of the changes? On what grounds were the changes challenged? What has changed since the 1950s? What has remained the same? What might be the future status of World History instruction in the United States?

In an attempt to respond to these questions, I have examined contemporaneous government documents as well as the comments of interested parties on what should and should not be taught to public high school students in their World History courses.

    I began my research on this topic with two premises in mind:

    1. That public school history curricula have always been politicized to a lesser or  greater degree.

    2. That World History curricula have by and large been negotiated and implemented in terms of the national perspective and thus serve as expressions of national values.

 

Putting the curricula changes, transformations, and reformulations in proper context requires a  word about  America’s decentralized  public education system. States, localities and school districts have historically been given great flexibility in establishing public school curricula, course standards, student expectations, and standardized/ assessment exams. In New York State, for example, a Board of Regents was created prior to the Civil War  and charged with creating high stake assessment exams which public  high school students were expected to pass in order to graduate. The first of these Regents exams was administered in 1880.

THE “OLD” WORLD HISTORY

In 1945, the New York State Education Department, Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development issued  a World History curriculum to every public high schools in New York State. The Bureau announced that a new emphasis was being given to the importance of teaching history, geography, government and citizenship. “An adequate understanding of the American heritage,” the Bureau declared, “must reach rather deeply into the significant trends and movements which began  to gather considerable momentum even in the centuries preceding the establishment of our own national government.” World History teachers were instructed to focus on the great ideals (referred to in the report as “Fountainheads of Freedom” ) so that their students can learn to appreciate universal historical values and ideas embodied in liberal, secular democracies. The  great ideals listed included:

        * popular sovereignty
        * representative government
        * natural rights of the individual to his life, liberty, and property
        * justice under the law

The goal was “ a social studies program that will be appropriate to all levels of interest and ability and yet provide a common  integrating basis of citizenship training for all children.” Local school systems, however, were given a great deal of flexibility on how to plan the day-to-day details of such a course.

The suggested content reflected a narrow definition of “World History.” Very little was to be taught about Africa, Asia, and Islamic civilizations (although mention was made of the “despotic rule of the ancient Orient”) and very little coverage was included of Latin America. In contrast, the proposed World  History unit covered in depth the scientific developments of Aristotle, Galen, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Darwin, and Mendel. The majority of the content focused on the origins of liberal, secular democratic political institutions as revealed in the “significant trends and movements throughout  World History.” (University of the State of New York,1945).

Four years after the issuance of the report, the Board of Regents “anxious to have the advice and counsel of college authorities in the further development and refinement of this history program for the senior high school years" appointed a committee of noted American historians to evaluate the 1945 curriculum. The findings of the committee centered on its responses to the questions: “What is World History and how should it be defined for the purposes of the senior high school?”

“ World History should not be conceived as an account of global events and tendencies  regardless of when or where they may have occurred, but rather an account of the development of the civilization of the famous continent—Europe, as that civilization has molded the fate and fortunes of Europeans themselves and of those parts and peoples of the rest of the world where the European influence in any dominant  and decisive way has  extended. Since in the course of the last 400 years hardly any region of the world has been exempt from that influence, the concept, obviously, is a global one; but it differs from the concept  used in the present syllabus which is indiscriminately global and lacks a clear, sharp focus anywhere.What is needed is a Europe-focus concept, a concept stressing the predominant role which Europeans have for centuries been playing in the creation of the world in which we live today.”(Report of College Committee, 1949)

 

The committee went on to note that “World History should be viewed primarily as a mirror in which the American high school students should see, grasp, and understand  the origins of their life and culture and also acquire an appreciation of how these origins planted in other portions of the world have in due time become a factor in his life.” (Report of College Committee, 1949)

Fast forward to the late 1950s when I was as student at George Washington High School,  in New York City, enrolled in a required  10th grade World History course. The course of study reflected both the vision of the Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development and of the 1949 College Committee report. The 1959 syllabus that the New York State Education Department mandated for all public school history students noted that “pupils need to grasp the fact that not all groups of mankind have developed at the same rate.” World History was divided into three evolutionary periods: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern.  East Africa was studied in the Paleolithic period but not in the modern. Greece, Rome and the Byzantines were discussed in depth, and mention was made of  Arab contributions  in education, literature, language, mathematics and science. The  contributions of the Renaissance to the arts, science,  and exploration were heavily covered .Western Hemispheric history was introduced only when Europeans arrived as explorers or colonists. (New York State Education Department, 1959)

  1959 NYS World History Syllabus

. 1959 NYS Regents Examination in World History

While it is always difficult to generalize when discussing the national mood during a specific time period, for myself, my peers, and for most of my teachers the late 1950s was a moment in time of general optimism and faith in America’s  positive role in the world. My World History course syllabus reflected a belief in the universality of Western ideals and of the West’s definition of progress. The curriculum was part of a “grand narrative that told how a fortunate part of the human race [ Western Civilization from the late 19th to mid 20th centuries found a key to such progress, then shared the information with others.” (Gress, 2000)

 BUILDING THE NEXT CONSENSUS

By the time I graduated from high school in 1961, I was intellectually and emotionally committed to being  first, a history major, and then a history teacher. I saw myself on the frontlines of the efforts to promote an appreciation of Western values. Stiffening  my resolve to follow this career path was the comparison I had made between the values of a free society  and the values (or lack of same) of Communist totalitarian regimes.

During the tumultuous 1960s I was quite focused on my undergraduate and then graduate  studies. During the decade, I was aware that a generation of academics began questioning World History as it was taught on the secondary level. By this time, World History was the second most commonly studied Social Studies course in American high schools.  The content was organized chronologically and featured Western political  theory and the actions and contributions of men. The assessments in these courses were noted for privileging  memorization over analysis.

Critics of this approach began looking at the roles of the people generally  missing or marginalized from the existing curriculum. The “missing in action” included women, minorities, immigrants and workers. A widening of the frame of reference was strongly suggested.

By the mid-1970s  when I began my public school teaching career these concerns had  materialized into rather dramatic changes in high school World History offerings. World History,  had, in fact, been dropped by most states as a graduation requirement and replaced by cultural geography courses also known as “Area Studies.” By the end of the 1970s more attention was being paid to social history and to the non-Western world.

The 1980s witnessed an even more dramatic shift in course focus. Academic critics, including the newly founded  World History Association, began to argue that the U.S. was changing in ways that weakened its ties to its European roots. Recent immigrants to the U.S. were coming from Caribbean, Mexico, Africa and Southeast Asia courtesy of the 1965 and 1986 statutory changes in U.S. immigration law.  Based on these changes, it was maintained, a Eurocentric approach presented a problem in teaching World History on both the high school and university levels.  Also in the decade, The History Teacher  began publishing articles on a regular basis calling for the need of public school history teachers to provide their students with a balanced view of the entire human community. Europe, it was claimed, had to be placed in a global context because its place in the world was contracting. (Farmer, 1985)

Donald Johnson’s 1987 article made an exceptionally strong case for curricula change. Johnson observed that “ we live in a world no longer dominated by the West and that increasing immigration from Latin America and Asia has added news sources of culture and diversity in the U.S.” To continue teaching World History as it had been taught in the past would be to “encourage a narrow ethnocentrism which may prove to be dysfunctional in preparing students for life in the future.” Johnson then laid out his view of how  civilizations should be studied:

“Each society was different and had to be studied and understood in the context of its own norms. All the great civilizations of the world should be included as equals in the schools. All  major civilizations have to be awarded a history and not treated as an area study. Each civilization must be developed chronologically so students realize that civilizations outside the West have histories and cultures worth studying. We should follow this approach even if  means reducing our attention to Western Europe and American studies.”( Johnson, 1987)

 

Two further developments helped to crystallize a new consensus on how World History courses should be structured on the secondary school level. In 1983, the College Board,  a not-for-profit non-governmental organization dedicated to the preparation of U.S. secondary school students for college and university, added its voice to the growing chorus for change in a widely disseminated booklet entitled, Academic Preparation in Social Studies .

The College Board took a clear position in favor of what it called a “true World History course”  over a Western Civilization course.  The Board advised that cultures needed to be understood on their own terms, not just when they happened to come into contact with Western civilizations. (Adler and Lye, 1987)

Arguably, the most important impetus for change in the content of World History high school curricula were the findings of the Bradley Commission Report published in 1988. The recommendations by this non-governmental entity centered on the need for the nation's schools to focus away from content memorization and towards “historical thinking and analysis.”  School districts were urged to establish a core set of vital themes and narratives highlighting cultural diffusion, human interaction with the environment, political ideas and institutions, as well as conflict and cooperation. More  coverage of comparative history  and patterns of social and political interaction were recommended. The widespread publicity surrounding the findings of the Commission generated a debate about the future of American education that spread beyond educational circles and whose impact would be felt in the following decade. (The Bradley Commission on History in the Schools, 1988)

THE “NEW” WORLD HISTORY

By the early 1990s,  I had been a public school history teacher for  two decades. Long gone was the World History curriculum of my student days, having been replaced Area Studies. For the 9th grade, New York State’s version of Area Studies divided the world into eight regions; students studied each region from ancient times to the present. After spending seven or eight weeks on a particular region, students then moved on to another region.  The 10th  grade largely focused on European History since the 1500s. At the conclusion of the 10th grade, students were required to take and pass what was now renamed the  Global Studies Regents examination.  The exam which covered both the 9th and 10th grade curriculum was mostly content-based and heavily weighted towards material covered in the 10th grade.

In 1990, the New York State Commissioner of Education, Thomas Sobel,  launched a drive to replace the existing Global Studies Curriculum with what he called a “ Curriculum of Inclusion” into New York’s public schools. His rationale echoed the concerns voiced by the Bradley Commission and others:

“ In today’s world and tomorrow’s our ability to compete economically depends in part on educating well all of our children, whatever their background. Our success also depends on our ability to understand other cultures and societies. If we wish to communicate effectively -- as we must—with the majority of the world’s people who are not white and English-speaking, we must know more about how they see the world, how they make sense of experience, why they behave as they do.... We can not understand our complex society without  understanding the history and culture of its major ethnic and cultural components. We face a paradox: Only through understanding our diverse roots and branches can we fully comprehend  the whole. Only by accommodating  our differences can we become one society.  Only by exploring our human variations can we apprehend our common humanity.”   (Memo from Commissioner Sobel, February 22, 1990)

 

    In response to the criticism leveled by those in the educational and political communities anxious to preserve the traditional approach to the teaching of World History , Sobel posed and  then answered the following question:

“ Will the new curriculum diminish the importance of our Western heritage and values?  NO! Increasing students’ knowledge of the non-Western world and non-Western traditions is enriching, not diminishing. American society is derived mainly from its proximate roots in Western Civilization, and the fundamental tenets of American democracy are the product of Western thought and experience. The importance of this tradition must be maintained. But it is also important to learn about the significant contributions of other people to American life, and about the global community with which we share a common destiny. To know more about my neighbor does not diminish me!” (New York State Education Department, One Nation, Many Peoples, 1991.)

Ultimately,  Commissioner Sobel’s vision was implemented in the form of a new two-year Global History and Geography course required of all  New York State public high school students for graduation. The Area Studies approach  was replaced by a Global History course of study that highlighted  major themes and concepts by studying what was happening in different world regions during the same time period.  For example, the previously Eurocentric  treatment of the period 1200-1650 was now replaced with a unit labeled “Global Interactions” which had as its focus early Japanese history, the Mongols, the rise and fall of African civilizations, along with the Renaissance and the Reformation.

In addition to the content changes, the new Global History and Geography Regents exam assessed higher-ordered thinking skills, which, unlike the previous fact-based assessments, would expose students to intellectual activities supporting “real historical understanding.”  The exam required students to compare and contrast events, analyze issues, evaluate solutions to problems, explore multiple perspectives, and analyze primary and secondary documents.

2009 Global History and Geography Syllabus

2009 Global History and Geography Regents exam (essay portion.)

Criticism of the Sobel curriculum changes came quickly on the heals of its announcement. Some of the loudest voices of protest were heard from noted historians, including Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the dean of American historians. Schlesinger viewed the multicultural drift away from the traditional  World History approach as  an example of the “politicization  of the curriculum.”  “ Democratic ideals”  he asserted, “come from Europe. Europe is the unique source of these ideals—ideals that today empower people in every continent and to which today most of the world aspires.”  Barry Strauss, Professor of History at Cornell University, concurred and offered this warning:

“ If  world history courses become cheerleading for particular ethnic groups of non-Western civilizations, they will mislead students about the culture they now live in. The unprecedented flow and diversity of U.S. immigrant populations mean it’s  all the more imperative that students be exposed  to standard single stories about the nation and Western tradition. History is designed to Americanize and  [the multicultural approach in teaching] World History detracts from and possibly subverts this task.” (New York State Education Department, The Report of the New York State Review and Development Committee, 1993)

 

Efforts to de-Europeanize the World History curriculum ( to move beyond the “ West and the Rest” approach) reached their full flowering when in 2000 the College Board, with the full support and urging of the World History Association, expanded its offerings of Advanced Placement history courses to include “World History.”  Supporters of the additional offering argued that it was time to move away from the old-fashioned superficial political narrative and to move in the direction of exploring a World History that was “socially inclusive, attentive to the contributions of diverse cultures, and dedicated to the relativist precept that no culture is inherently better or worse than any other.” (Dunn, 2001)

The new course proved an instant success growing from 21,000 test takers in 2002 (the first year in which an AP World History exam was given) to 150,000 in 2009. In fact, AP World is the fastest growing College Board Advanced Placement offering in its 55 –year history.

The AP World syllabus covers  five time periods from the Neolithic to the present. The course adopts a thematic approach within a chronological framework and focuses on historical thinking skills, including the use of historical evidence, chronological reasoning, and comparison and contextualization. Coverage of Europe and America is currently limited to 30% of the course (this will be reduced to 25% in the redesigned AP World syllabus for the 2011-2012 academic year).

The essay portion of the 2009 AP World exam reveals the dramatic departure from the assessments in previous iterations of the World History course.

2009 AP World History exam (essay portion)

 The primary rationale for this hugely popular AP World centered on the growing recognition that citizenship in a democracy requires global understanding, a view endorsed by an AP World instructor that appeared on the AP World list-serv:

“A more balanced world perspective is needed by students. This perspective should focus on global exchange (trade, ideas, technology, capital). This perspective is an essential component of today’s world, and knowing the roots of such things is important.  To see similarities and differences  in cultures seems pretty important to enhance communication today.” ( e-mail  from Tifton, January 15, 2009)

The course's diminished coverage in all that is Western in origin may also be an outgrowth of a recognition among intellectual circles (in and out of  academia) that “ the West is losing influence; Western dynamism which was once thought of as natural is being subverted and belief in the unique qualities of European belief  systems, institutions, capitalism, and individualism is now problematic.” (Grew, 2006)

As in previous curriculum changes, the "new" World History approach has not been without its critics. It has drawn opposition for being too anti-Western---"Has the West's slights, sins and shortcomings become not a piece of history, but its essence?--(Wall Street Journal, September 5,2008) and for not being anti-Western enough --" The New World History is one of the 21st century's preeminent forms of colonizing knowledge-- and all the more insidious in that it appears to be as benign and ecumenical an enterprise as one can imagine." (Lal, 2005)

BACK TO THE FUTURE?

     
By the time I had retired from the high school history classroom in July, 2005, the World History curriculum in New York State’s public schools had been transformed. The heavily Eurocentric content-based course of study that inspired me in the 1950s had been replaced by a multicultural approach that focused both on content and skills mastery. Comparing and contrasting the syllabi and Regents exams of 1959 and 2009 makes these distinctions clear.

But has New York State’s approach been adopted by the remaining 49 states? To what extent should New York be considered a “outlier” in history curriculum reform? Kathleen Manzo’s survey of state World History Standards revealed that they, more often than not, emphasized  European History while neglecting content on Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. New York was only one of eight states to earn an “A” for their academic standards while thirty-three states earned “D's” and “F’s.” ( Manzo, 2006) Peter Stearns, a key proponent of the “new" World History, glumly reported that “the average World History course in the U.S. is still 60% Western,” with some state education departments taking a Western Civilization course and simply adding a unit on China, India and Africa. (Stearns, 2006)

Given the great variation in the quality and quantity of courses in World History it would be inaccurate to contend that a widespread curriculum transformation has taken place in the United States. The strongest piece of evidence to support this contention, however, is the creation and successful implementation of the College Board’s hugely popular AP World History course. Although the course is not a state mandated requirement for high school graduation, its scope, content and learning skills have gained a wide influence on high school curriculum. (Manzo,2006)   While still in its infancy, AP World was adopted by roughly 23% of AP-offering schools during the 2009-2020 academic year. The percentage is sure to rise as more and more school districts use AP World to replace AP European History and offer more students the choice of taking AP World to fulfill a history graduation requirement. (e-mail from Strickland, March 7, 2010)

What has remained the same since the 1950s is the reluctance by the states to cede educational policy, especially the writing of curricula, to the Federal  government. When the National History Standards Project released its National Standards for World History in 1992 calling for the adoption of an anti-Eurocentric approach, the U.S. Senate responded by passing a resolution (the vote was 99 to 1) that specifically denounced the  National Standards for World History  on the grounds that “ schools that receive Federal money should have a decent respect for the contributions of Western civilizations.” (Schrier, 1996)

Looking to the future, are there scenarios which would increase public support for a multicultural, de-Europeanizing approach  to the teaching of World History in public schools? Conversely , are there scenarios  which would shift public sentiment away from such an approach and towards a more traditional Eurocentric treatment? Factors that could influence the trajectory of the World History curriculum  might include: growing disillusionment with the West’s ability to solve intractable global problems, the equating of assimilation to a common Western culture as a form of oppression, and another 9/11–type attack which would stiffen America’s national resolve  and focus more attention on its Western-inspired ideals.(The Economist, December, 19, 2009)

What is certain is that the debate will continue with possibly fifty different ideas proposed as to what American high school students in each state should be learning about their nation and the world. The debates that will ensue are expected—and welcomed---in a liberal secular democracy where the public schools are tasked with helping children and adolescents learn who they are as citizens of a nation-state or as citizens of the World, or both.

 

SOURCES CONSULTED

The “Old “ World History

William D. Swinton, “Outlines of General History,” in  Outlines of the World’s History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern With Special Relation to the History of Civilization and the Progress of Mankind. 1874.

University of the State of New York. Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development.
World History (The Development of World Institutions) :A Suggested Unit Organization for the Tenth Grade Program in Social Studies.1945.

Report of College Committee on the Teaching of American and World History in the Schools of New York.1949.

New York State Education Department. Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development.
Teaching World History. 1959.

University of the State of New York.Bureau of Secondary Curriculum Development.
 Social Studies 10-11-12. 1963.

Don Bragaw, “A Century of Secondary Social Studies: Looking Backward and Forward,”
In Virginia Wilson et al. Teaching Social Studies: Handbook of Trends, Issues, and   
 Implications For the Future.
1993.

Nancy Beadie,”From Student Markets to Credential Markets: The Creation of the Regents Examination System in New York State, 1864-1890.” History of Education Quarterly. Spring, 1999.

David R. Gress, “The Drama of Modern Western Identity.” Independent Review.  Winter, 2000.

Arnold Schrier, “National Standards for World History: Exploring Paths to the Present.”
Journal of World History. Vol.7, No.2, 1996.=

New York State Regents Examination in World History. June, 1959.  www.nysl.nysed.gov/regentsexams.htm

 

Building the Next Consensus

National Commission  on Excellence in Education, A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. 1983.

The Bradley Commission on History in Schools,  Building A History Curriculum: Guidelines  for Teaching History in Schools. 1988.

Douglas D. Adler and William F. Lye, “Dare We Teach World History?  Dare We Not.”
The History Teacher. May, 1987.

Patricia Cohen, “Great Caesar’s Ghost! Are Traditional History Courses Vanishing?”
The New York Times. June 11, 2009.

Matthew T. Downey (ed.), History in the Schools. 1985.

Edward L. Farmer, “Civilization As a Unit of World History: Eurasia and Europe’s Place In It.” The History Teacher. May, 1985.

Donald Johnson, “ The American Education Tradition: Hostile to a Humanistic World History?” in The History Teacher. 20, August, 1987.

“World History Standards For Grades 5-12.” in National Standards for History. National  
Center for History in the Schools, 1996.

The “New” World History

Memo to Interested Persons from State Education Department Commissioner, Thomas Sobel. Subject: “ A Curriculum of Inclusion.” February 22,1990.

New York State Education Department, One Nation, Many Peoples: A Declaration of Cultural Interdependence. 1991.

New York State Regents Exam in Global History and Geography. June, 2009.
http;//www.nysl.nysed.gov/regentsexams.htm

Jerry H. Bentley, Shapes of World History in Twentieth Century Scholarship. American Historical Association, 1996.

New York State Education Department. One Nation, Many Peoples: A Declaration of Cultural Interdependence. The Report of the New York State Social Studies Review and Development Committee. 1993.

David Feith, “Don’t Know Much About History.”  Wall Street Journal. September 5, 2008.

Raymond Grew, “Expanding Worlds of World History.” The Journal of Modern History.
December, 2006.

Randall A. Harper and Matthew R. McClure, “The World History Standards In Today’s Classroom.” The History Teacher. May, 1995.

David J. Hoff,  “A World Apart: Educators Hope to Change History.” Education Week.
September 13, 2000.

Ross Dunn, The New World History: A Teacher’s Companion. 2001.

Ross Dunn, “The Two World Histories.” Social Education. September, 2008.

Jerry H. Bentley, “Why Study History?” World History Connected. Vol.5, Issue 1, October, 2007.

Sofia Karlsson, “Xenophobia Tests National Legitimacy.” Policy Innovations. March 17, 2010.

Vinay Lal, “Much Ado About Something: The New Malaise of World History.” Radical History Review. Winter, 2005.

Felice Lifshitz and Jerry H. Bentley, “Globalizing Historiography.” (Theme for the 2009
annual meeting). American Historical Association Perspectives. September, 2007.

Rich Lowry, “ Our First Transnational President?” National Review. July 28, 2008.

AP World History Course Content. http://www.apcentral.collegeboard.org
(Click on “World History” on pull down course menu.)

Heidi Roupp (ed),  A Jump Start Manual for World History Teachers. 1999.

Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel. 1997.

Patrick Manning, Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past. 2003.

Maritere Lopez and Melissa  Jordine, “A Practical Compromise to Teaching World History: Thematic Bridges, Standards, and Technology.” World History Connected. Vol.5, issue 3, May, 2009.

S.G.Grant  et al. “ Juggling Two Sets of Books: A Teacher Responds to the New York State Global History Exam.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. Vol. 17, no.3, Spring, 2002.

Robert B. Bain and Tamara L. Shreiner, “Issues and Opinions in Creating a National Assessment in World History.” The History Teacher. Vol.38, No.2, February, 2005.

Ricardo Duchesne, “ Defending the Rise of Western Culture Against Its Multicultural Critics.” The European Legacy. Vol.10, no. 5, 2005.

 Elizabeth Ann Pollard, “ Placing Greco-Roman History in World Historical Context.”
 Classical World. Vol.102, no.1, Fall, 2008.

Gilbert T. Sewall, “The Classroom Conquest of World History.” Education Week.
June 13, 2001.

Jacob Neusner, “ It is Time to Stop Apologizing  For Western Civilization and to Start
Analyzing Why It Defines World Culture.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol.15, February, 1989.

Diane Ravitch, “ International Studies in the School Curriculum.” in John Fonte and Andre Ryerson (ed), Education For America’s Role in World Affairs. 1994.

Keith  Windschuttle, “The Nation and the Intellectual Left.” The New Criterion. January, 2007.

Back to the Future?

Peter Stearns, “World History: Curricula and Controversy.” World History Connected.
Vol.3,Issue 3, September, 2006.

“Onwards and Upwards,” The Economist. December 19,2009.

Kathleen Kennedy Manzo,  “ Most States Earn Poor Grades for World History   
Standards.” Education Week. June 14, 2006.

    

The “New” World History

Memo to Interested Persons from State Education Department Commissioner, Thomas Sobel. Subject: “ A Curriculum of Inclusion.” February 22, 1990.

New York State Education Department, One Nation, Many Peoples: A Declaration of Cultural Interdependence. 1991.

New York State Regents Exam in Global History and Geography. June, 2009.
http;//www.nysl.nysed.gov/regentsexams.htm

Jerry H. Bentley, Shapes of World History in Twentieth Century Scholarship. American Historical Association, 1996.

New York State Education Department. One Nation, Many Peoples: A Declaration of Cultural Interdependence. The Report of the New York State Social Studies Review and Development Committee. 1993.

David Feith, “Don’t Know Much About History.”  Wall Street Journal. September 5, 2008.

Raymond Grew, “Expanding Worlds of World History.” The Journal of Modern History. December, 2006.

Randall A. Harper and Matthew R. McClure, “The World History Standards In Today’s Classroom.” The History Teacher. May, 1995.

David J. Hoff,  “A World Apart: Educators Hope to Change History.” Education Week.
September 13, 2000.

 Ross Dunn, The New World History: A Teacher’s Companion. 2001.

 Ross Dunn, “The Two World Histories.”  Social Education. September, 2008.

Jerry H. Bentley, “Why Study History?” World History Connected. Vol. 5, Issue 1, October, 2007.

Sofia Karlsson, “Xenophobia Tests National Legitimacy.” Policy Innovations. March 17, 2010.

Vinay Lal, “Much Ado About Something: The New Malaise of World History.” Radical History Review. Winter, 2005.

Felice Lifshitz and Jerry H. Bentley, “Globalizing Historiography.” (Theme for the 2009 annual meeting). American Historical Association Perspectives. September, 2007.

Rich Lowry, “ Our First Transnational President?” National Review. July 28, 2008.

AP World History Course Content. http://www.apcentral.collegeboard.org
   (Click on “World History” on pull down course menu.)

Heidi Roupp (ed.),  A Jump Start Manual for World History Teachers. 1999.

Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel. 1997.

Patrick Manning, Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past. 2003.

Maritere Lopez and Melissa  Jordine, “A Practical Compromise to Teaching World History: Thematic Bridges, Standards, and Technology.” World History Connected. Vol. 5, Issue 3, May, 2009.

S.G. Grant  et al. “ Juggling Two Sets of Books: A Teacher Responds to the New York State Global History Exam.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision. Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 2002.

 Robert B. Bain and Tamara L. Shreiner, “Issues and Opinions in Creating a National Assessment in World History.” The History Teacher. Vol. 38, No. 2, February, 2005.

Ricardo Duchesne, “ Defending the Rise of Western Culture Against Its Multicultural Critics.” The European Legacy. Vol. 10, No. 5, 2005.

 Elizabeth Ann Pollard, “ Placing Greco-Roman History in World Historical Context.”
 Classical World. Vol. 102, No. 1, Fall, 2008.

Gilbert T. Sewall, “The Classroom Conquest of World History.” Education Week.
June 13, 2001.

Jacob Neusner, “ It is Time to Stop Apologizing  For Western Civilization and to Start
Analyzing Why It Defines World Culture.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 15, February, 1989.

Diane Ravitch, “International Studies in the School Curriculum.” in John Fonte and Andre Ryerson (ed.), Education For America’s Role in World Affairs. 1994.

Keith  Windschuttle, “The Nation and the Intellectual Left.” The New Criterion. January, 2007.

Back to the Future?

 Peter Stearns, “World History: Curricula and Controversy.” World History Connected.
  Vol. 3, Issue 3, September, 2006.

 “Onwards and Upwards,” The Economist. December 19, 2009.

  Kathleen Kennedy Manzo,  “ Most States Earn Poor Grades for World History   
  Standards.” Education Week. June 14, 2006.