Introduction to the Forum: Standards and World History

Abstract

World historians largely reject Eurocentric approaches to history by embracing a global approach to course content focusing on connections and exchanges across time and space. But this can lead to a multitude of organizational frameworks and an even greater diversity of content selection. There is no consensus vision amongst world historians for what content, organization, scope, sequence, or interpretive framework is optimal for a world history education. The vibrancy of the field of world history is therefore in tension with the bureaucratic process of K-12 education in the United States, in which every state produces mandated guidelines known as standards that legally enforce a particular vision for world history education. This forum explores the conceptual, political, and practical questions that arise from the production of state standards.

Despite the headline-grabbing attention that controversies over standards can easily generate, we should perhaps start by exploring the extent to which these documents directly affect the teaching of world history. At a recent panel in the Midwest History Association conference on the subject of Difficult Histories, I asked veteran world history teachers Tom Barker and Eileen Orzoff-Baranyk about the effect state standards had on their day-to-day teaching styles. They both replied that, though they 1 of course drew upon state standards, their teaching was much more informed by their own expertise and background on the subject. Indeed, they suggested that unless there was a statewide standardized test or a district common assessment on the subject, standards documents are difficult to enforce. This accords well with research from educators, which indicate that teachers can be resistant to sweeping changes in how they do their work.