Committee Reports
Standards Committee, Lowell J. Satre, Ph.D.,
Chair
Public History Committee, Stephen C. Gordon,
Chair
Standards Committee
Lowell J. Satre, Ph.D., Chair
This past academic year the Standards Committee of the Ohio Academy of History examined the proposed revised Academic Standards for Social Studies of the Ohio Department of Education. The ODE, under mandate from the State, is developing common academic standards for all elementary and secondary students. All members of the Ohio Academy of History should be concerned with these academic standards, as they go a long way to determining the contents and focus of the teaching of history in our schools. Moreover, colleges and universities will be required to train teachers to implement these extraordinarily complex and demanding standards.
An early version of the social studies standards, prepared by a team of professional historians and social studies teachers, and staff members of the ODE, appeared on the ODE website in the fall of 2001. Members of the Standards Committee of the OAH studied this version, communicated their opinions to each other, and then met for a lengthy discussion at Oberlin College in early December. Based on these discussions, the chair drafted a statement on behalf of the committee. This draft was subsequently revised and submitted to the ODE by December 31, 2001.
Our statement ranged from general comments on World Studies and United States Studies (ODE does not use the term “history”) to very specific remarks on “strands.” It was readily apparent to the committee that proficiency testing drives the standards; little was expected from students in the last two years of high school, as testing is over by that stage. Hence, we recommended that twelfth grade should offer a “highly structured and substantive course with a theme in American or World History, thus utilizing the skills and knowledge base that the students have acquired over the previous three years of high school.” We also encouraged the ODE to retitle the four-unit sequence of World and U.S. “Studies” (offered from grades 7 through 10) with the word “History.” History, we argued, is the “primary component; it provides the structure for all of the other social studies and this should be recognized.” The committee also found that the World Studies courses were little more than Western Civilization with a few forays into the rest of the world. U. S. Studies standards were driven too much by political history, and were early on almost exclusively European and white-oriented. There was a marked lack of diversity. Moreover, the post–World War II era, which now comprises one-fourth of our nation’s history, was given only a cursory glance.
A revised version of the Social Studies Standards appeared on the ODE website in April 2002. Because of time restrictions and busy schedules, committee members were unable to meet as a group to discuss this latest version, but they did respond individually to the ODE. While I cannot speak for all members of the OAH Standards Committee, at least a few of them found that some substantial revisions had occurred. True, the term “studies” was still used rather than “history,” but an attempt was made to provide greater diversity to both U.S. and World Studies, and recommended course offerings for grades 11 and 12 were more substantive.
The ODE Social Studies Committee is presently working on the final draft of the standards, which ýill be submitted to the State Board of Education for its approval by the end of this year. In the 2002–2003 academic year, the OAH Standards Committee will examine how colleges and universities intend to train and retrain teachers to be able to successfully implement the new standards. Each individual college of education, after consulting with social studies instructors, determines how its courses meet the requirements for licensure of teachers. The OAH Standards Committee will be especially sensitive to the “contents” of courses in history and the other social studies. All too often, it appears, the emphasis in licensure requirements is on form or presentation and not on a solid grasp of contents. We encourage members of the OAH to consult periodically the ODE website www.ode.state.oh.us (with additional clicks) for the final version of the Social Studies standards which should be online by the end of this year. We encourage you to contact any member of the OAH Standards Committee (see page 2 or the OAH Website) with your concerns over the social studies standards and with teacher preparation. Also, if an OAH Standards Committee member asks you for information on teacher education at your institution, please help us. The wider the perspective of experience we can review, the more solid our recommendations can be. In closing, I offer special thanks to members of the Standards Committee.
Stephen C. Gordon, Chair
During the past year, the Committee on Public History has communicated informally among Academy members and has also sought input from colleagues and previous committee members. This spring, several members of the Committee served as panelists on the “Public Historians: How Are We Doing” session at the Academy’s annual meeting. Among the many issues coming out of this session and other discussions are three broad issues related to public history that the Committee will investigate and report on before the 2003 Spring Meeting. The Committee will examine existing public history programs in Ohio, program standards, and curriculum issues raised by public history professionals and administrators in our colleges and universities. Enrollments, faculty credentials, and curricula within Ohio’s public history programs are being compiled. Perhaps the traditional history curricula can be augmented and even strengthened by offering courses needed for public history professionals.
A second key issue comes under the heading of programs and public interaction. Most of us in the Academy recognize that history depends on the understanding and support of the public. Dr. Orloff Miller of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center suggested at the Spring Meeting historians should work to de-mystify what it is they do. Once we make history more accessible and interdisciplinary we will, notes Miller, garner more public funding. Adds Charles Cole, director emeritus of the Ohio Humanities Council, interaction between academic historians and the general public must be improved and expanded. Indeed, compelling opportunities for funding public history in Ohio have been noted by Amos J. Loveday, recently retired State Historic Preservation Officer. Research done by Loveday finds that from 1996—1998 the State of Ohio spent nearly $45 million on non-teaching activities that deal with the past. It may be prudent for the Academy to explore the potential of this revenue stream, even in light of looming budget reductions. Taking a lead in this area is the Ohio Humanities Council, which has increasingly funded community-based history programs. The Council’s local history programs offer solid experience for graduate students while the popular Ohio Chatauqua program allows academics to showcase their talents in communities across the state. We are also reminded by Elizabeth MacLean of the importance of inviting alumni and members of historical organizations such as OAHSM and SOA to speak before college and university students. The Committee will carefully consider and examine methods of strengthening the “town and gown” exchange within the arena of public history.
The third area the Committee will examine is career opportunities and training for professional historians outside the teaching field. With more than 900 historical organizations in Ohio, of which 700 qualify as historical societies and museums, preparation and placement for careers in these public history arenas warrant more than casual attention. It is not an exaggeration to say we have a responsibility to train and place students more effectively for the range of career opportunities that await them after graduate school.
Despite reports of America’s historical amnesia, our nation’s appetite for history seems insatiable. Perhaps Ohio’s upcoming Bicentennial can serve as a catalyst for better integrating public history programs and its citizens with our long tradition of solid history research and instruction. The Committee for Public History is eager to delve into these issues and present its findings, and hopefully, a few meaningful recommendations to the Academy and its members.