COMMENTS ON HISTORY-SOCIAL SCIENCE

                                           STANDARDS FOR GRADES K-8

                                                               AND 10-12

 

                                                                     BY

                                                   JACK D. FORBES, PH.D

                             PROFESSOR OF NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

                                                  AND ANTHROPOLOGY,

                                    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

 

                                                      Introductory Remarks

                                                                       

As I am writing, the majority of California students in grades K-12 are persons who are descended from the Original Americans, that is, from the peoples who have been living in the Americas from the days when the great glaciers covered much of Canada, that is, before 13,000 years ago. It is true, of course, that these students will be known by various names, some using Chicano/a, while others will use Mexicano/a, Mexican-American, Latino/a, Hispanic, American Indian, Indigenous, Mestizo/a, Cholo/a, or even African-American or white, but they all have in common their American ancestry (in whole or in part) stemming from the Incas, Garifunas, Nahuas, Otomies, Mayas, Yaquis, Mixtecs, Navajos, Cherokees, and other Original Peoples or First Nations of North and South America. By the year 2010 some scholars say that Brown Americans with indigenous ancestry will constitute an absolute majority of the California population. This represents a fundamental shift in California history.

In the Los Angeles Basin one can drive from West Los Angeles to San Bernardino or from Eagle Rock to Compton without hardly ever leaving an area where persons of American indigenous ancestry are either the majority or a substantial element of the population.

In 1848 English-speaking Euroamericans suddenly became a majority in northern California, and then in the 1870's-1880's in southern California as well. Now, a century or a century and a half later, the pre-1848 situation is being recreated, with a non-white majority. In addition to the persons of mixed or indigenous race, California is also home to growing numbers of persons of Asian, Pacific, Middle Eastern, and African ancestry.

These great changes in the racial and ethnic character of California must require a revolution in the way we teach history and social science.

If we are to make education meaningful for the huge numbers of youth of American race, of African race, of Asian background, of mixed and other ancestries we must make our curriculum California-centered, Americas-centered, Pacific-centered, and world-centered.[1]

The old patterns of European-focused, east coast-focused, Atlantic-centered curricula must be replaced. If we do not we can expect additional generations of troubled youth and gangs, contributing to social chaos and growing prison populations. I would aver that an irrelevant education is, in many ways, an education for gangs and alienation, since an education which ignores youngsters deprives them of the knowledge of who they are and what they can become.

For many years, our curriculum has insulted non-whites and neglected women while giving preferential treatment to persons of Anglo-European ancestry and male gender. Fortunately, Eurocentric and male biases are no longer legal.

 

                                             Legal Background

 

The proposed history-social science standards must meet the requirements of the California State Constitution which, at Article I, Section 7b, states:

A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

This means that the culture and history of all citizens must be recognized in the schools, on the same terms, and that no single class of citizens may have their culture and history enshrined above that of everyone else. The latter would, of course, constitute a privilege of immense value and one giving a distinct advantage to the favored class of citizens. It is especially important to note that "a class" would specifically include the working class and its organizations, such as organized labor.

Proposition 209, now Article I, Section 31a, mandates that

the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting....

Public education includes the curricula pursued in the schools and thus no curricula can be adopted which discriminates against any race, ethnic or national group, or either gender, or which gives a preference to any race, ethnic or national group, or either gender.

 

                                              General Findings

 

The proposed curriculum standards actually remind me very much of what I personally studied in the 1950's at Glendale College and at USC. The standards for world history resemble a cut-back version of the Civilization Past and Present text developed by T. Walter Wallbank under whom I studied at USC. His text was a pioneering one, but we are at the year 2000, half a century later, and we should have the opportunity to make use of the last fifty years of scholarship. The United States history standards presented hark back to an era when women counted for very little and the story of our country was presented as a glorious pageant of Anglo-American triumphs with Native Americans and other non-Caucasians mentioned only as peripheral issues or slight blemishes, if at all.

Tragically, the proposed standards are extremely deficient and cannot possibly meet the legal requirements of the California Constitution. In fact, I must say in all frankness that I find them outrageously biased and fundamentally racist.

Upon examining the proposed standards one is struck immediately by the incredibly strong bias against women. Women are everywhere left out of the mainstream of history, whether it be in the ignoring of Minoan civilization and other women-centered cultures of ancient times, to the total neglect of the history of the victories of patriarchy and the elimination of female deities, to the figures selected for special biographical study throughout the curricula.

I have attempted to analyze the proposed standards on a quantitative basis, in order to provide at least an impressionistic view of relative treatment of women and other groups. The standards include roughly 333 inches of material (37 pages x 9" per page). Excluding transitional phrases, about 300" contain content. Women receive about 1" of the 300", along with seven "traces" or references to a single name, usually Susan B. Anthony. I know that the reader will find it hard to believe, but it's a fact! The entire modern women's' movements from the right-to-vote struggle through modern feminism receives 1/2"! Roe v. Wade seems to go unmentioned.

Students will not have to know about women's struggles to obtain a serious education or to attend major universities or to do graduate work, or their efforts to open job opportunities outside of the home or factory, or their efforts to control the kind of clothing and restricted environments imposed upon women, or their ability to write and to read literature of their own choosing; nor will students understand the crucial role of women in the reform of prison conditions, of facilities for the mentally ill and retarded, for the deaf and blind, or in the entire settlement house movement for immigrants.

State law now requires that there be no preferential treatment for males. By that test, these proposed standards must be rewritten from start to finish. They are illegal on their face.

The proposed standards also have a strongly anti-Americas bias. The evolution of American civilizations from the great Louisiana mounds of 4,000-5,000 years ago, to the development of the worlds largest cities in Peru and Mexico, to the fantastic urban centers of Cahokia in Illinois and Moundville in Alabama, to the intensely democratic and often matri-focused federations of the Hodenasaunee (Iroquois), Leni Lenápe (Delaware), and Muskogee (Creek), to the many rich artistic and architectural traditions of the Adena-Hopewell, Mochica, Chimu, and Totonaca, one finds a big glaring hole. The tapestry of American history and political-social evolution is reduced to a few short units of study, all in the early grades.

As incredible as it may seem, the section in the standards dealing with the pre-500 CE period contains nothing about American origins and students will be led to believe that all civilization commenced on other continents. Yet in my study of "The Urban Tradition Among Native Americans" I note that

"the evidence seems to indicate that from about 1600-1700 BC. until the 1519-1520 CE period the largest cities in the world were often located in the Americas...." (see Forbes, in forthcoming issue of American Indian Culture and Research Journal).

The domestication of crops in Mexico now extends back to almost 10,000 years ago, and, of course, these crops are among the most important in the world, including maize, potatoes, sweet potatoes, squashes, beans, and tomatoes, among many others. Very large cities began to appear as early as 2,000-1,600 BC. along the coast of Peru at Aspero and Las Haldas. The latter may have been one of the largest cities for its time in the world. Subsequent great urban areas included many Olmec sites in Mexico, Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala, Mitla and Monte Alban in Oaxaca, Tikal in Guatemala, Tiahuanaco near Lake Titicaca, Huari farther north in Peru, and the great center of Teotihuacan in central Mexico, all flourishing before 500 CE. Teotihuacan was a contemporary of Rome and was probably the greatest urban center in the world, with seven square miles of ceremonial/educational area and a vast population.

That perhaps the greatest urban centers of the pre-500 CE period could be left out of the standards, centers which often directly influenced developments in our country, is astounding indeed! But we must also sadly note that many great cities and cultures of the post-500 CE era are also left out including Chan Chan in Peru, Snaketown in Arizona, Yellowjacket in Colorado, and Tula and El Tajin in Mexico.

The proposed standards fundamentally neglect the 20,000 or 30,000 years of American history in favor of a few "snapshots" inserted without any understanding that over half of our pupils possess American racial ancestry (including, incidentally, a high percentage of African-American youth) and that they need in-depth exposure to the greatness of the indigenous American mind and to the wonderful intellectual, architectural, artistic, mathematical, scientific, and social accomplishments of the Original Americans.

"Aztecs are us" might be a good slogan to keep in mind. For the majority of our pupils have, or will soon have, some degree of Nahua ancestry or heritage. But "Aztecs are us" is best seen as a symbol that we must stop thinking of ourselves primarily as Europeans.

Native American civilizations and historical experiences receive a total of 10" with virtually all of that in grades 3 to 7. First Americans simply do not exist in the high school curricula proposed, except that Central and South American rebellions receive brief mention. The standards commission is clearly telling Native children to drop-out after grade 7!

Mexico and Mexican-Americans receive about 1.5" of attention, virtually all in grades 4 to 8. Of this, almost none actually deals with Latina/os, Chicana/os or any aspect of the current student majority in California's schools! Again, it is quite clear that the commission intends to drive large numbers of Latina/os out of high school at an early age.

Incredible as it may seem, the struggles of Mexican-Americans after World War II, with such groups as CSO, LULACS, American GI Forum, etc. are entirely left out, as are the long organizing efforts of unions such as CUCOM, formed long before. The Mexican American Political Association, MAYO, MECHA, Tijerina, "Aztlan," and Cesar Chavez, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee and the Delano strike are ignored or not treated in any appropriate depth.

In short, the "civil rights" and political history of the present majority of California students is virtually non-existent.

Many other inexplicable glitches appear in the standards. Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, the Pacific (including Hawaii), Iran and Persian civilization, Armenia, eastern Europe generally, coastal Africa from Senegal to Angola where most of our African ancestry stems from, Ethiopia, the expansion of Bantu peoples, connections between Africa and the Pacific, the development of democracy in Switzerland, the history of Canada, Mexico and Latin America are among the areas or topics strangely overlooked or barely mentioned. Given the ethnic and cultural legacies of our California students one would expect otherwise!

In the coverage of United States history one finds that the story is still one of the westward-migrating Anglo-American ethnic group without even a pretense of treating the United States as a country on the face of the earth. For example, in 1800-1850 students are to learn about issues in the "north" and the "south" but nothing is to be studied about the "west" or Alaska or Hawaii or Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. What was happening politically in New Mexico in 1838 or between the Kiowa, Comanche, Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Lakota (Sioux) out on the High Plains is ignored.

In short, only white people who speak English count in these proposed standards and geographic sections of our land become worthy of study only after they pass under Anglo-American rule. This is a one-sided and ethnically-biased way of teaching, one sure to tell non-white youth that they do not belong! [See Jack D. Forbes, "The Historian and the Indian: Racial Bias in American History," The Americas (Academy of American Franciscan History) XIX(4) April 1963; "Frontiers in American History," Journal of the West I(1), July 1962;  "The Indian in the West: Challenge for Historians," Arizona and the West I(3) Autumn 1959; and "Racial Bias in Gold Rush History," The Masterkey, 33(1),January-March 1959].

The use of the term "American people" in the standards implies that Native Americans are not Americans, that African-Americans are not Americans, and that no Americans from the rest of North and South America are Americans! The very conscious way in which the United States War for Independence is spoken of as "the American Revolution" not only betrays probably erroneous ideas about "revolution" but also denies to the other peoples of the Americas or to Native Americans any participation in an "American" revolution. Of course, we all know that Anglo-Americans have developed the habit of referring to themselves as Americans, a habit which began innocently enough when they used the term in much the same way that someone in France might say "I am a European." But it becomes an ethnic weapon when other people who have equal (or better) claim upon the name are excluded from its embrace. It can no longer be used in a racially-biased manner, legally speaking.

And this brings up the fact that pre-Columbian contacts between Africans and America are totally ignored, as are Chinese and Japanese early contacts with the west coast and Mexico. Left out also is the fact that the first permanent non-Native settlers in the United States were Africans who, in the 1520's, managed to rebel successfully against the Spaniards in what is now South Carolina. They were still alive, and intermarried with Americans, when De Soto invaded the region two decades later. Now how can it be that these African pioneers on the east coast, long preceding any English settlers, are left out of the tapestry? How is it that Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese visitors to the west coast are ignored, even though some of them preceded Jamestown ?

Shockingly, Asian-Americans receive 0'' out of 300 (that's right, zero) unless we can interpret "immigrant" as covering all of our Asian nationalities including Asians in contact with California as early as the sixteenth-century or in the case of the Hwui Shan voyage, in the fifth-century. Unknown vessels of Pacific design were seen by the Spaniards along the Pacific Coast and some sixty Asian craft are known to have reached the region in the century after 1770. Contacts between Native Americans and Polynesians receive no attention and the entire subject of our Pacific history, including the internal development of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and of Samoa and Guam are ignored.

The relocation of Japanese-Americans in World War II and the important Korematsu case seem not to be mentioned. This follows the pattern of completely ignoring discrimination against Chinese, Japanese, Filipino and other Asian workers from 1848 on, and also ignoring the economic, cultural, and labor union organizing contributions of such groups in Hawaii and along the west coast.

African-Americans are treated with incredible disdain by the standards. In addition to my remarks above, it should be said that Africa (including Kem/Egypt) receives 4" in grades 6-7, with only two trace references in high school. African-Americans, who have almost always made up a significant proportion of the U.S. population, receive about 8'' of 300, mostly in grades 8 and 11. Much of this attention has to do with slavery or civil rights and very little focuses upon the rich cultures of Black Americans or on their internal history. The "Harlem Renaissance" seems to end Black cultural developments and little is said about Black religion, music, dance, art, literature, theater, film, or economics. Politics are pretty well limited to Garvey (coupled with the KKK) and the so-called civil rights era.

The sections dealing with the African-American struggle and civil rights, found at 11.4 and 11.9 in grade 11 are an example of very poorly prepared material, even when there is an appearance of dealing with non-Anglo-Americans. There are so many things left out, that a major essay would be needed to fill in the gaps, but let us note that the struggles of Jews, Native Americans, Chicanos, and others, going on often at the same time as the Black struggle, are not mentioned at all. This, of course, distorts the entire issue of racism and prejudice in the USA. The struggle of Jews to obtain admission to elite "white" universities in the early part of the century and the anti-semitism of the KKK and other right-wing movements are ignored. But still further, the long efforts of Blacks to build up their own universities and to gain admission to "white" colleges is left out, along with numerous campaigns for jobs and fair play which long preceded the post-World War II era. The difficulties faced by Black troops in both world wars along with the prejudice faced afterwards, the racial attacks of the 1920's, lynching, the segregation of musicians (such as that faced by Lena Horne when she sang with white bands), are among the countless topics not explored.

One has a tendency to either laugh or cry when one sees the way in which this significant sector of the American population has been shunted into a few little ghettoes of attention. But then, the examples of the struggle for democracy never draw upon the Haitian rebellion against France or for that matter on any rebellion involving African peoples. So what we have is a rather systematic policy of exclusion which can hardly be accidental. Again, one wonders if Black youth are supposed to stay in school to graduation after being so thoroughly insulted.

The Middle East and South Asia also suffer from under-attention, somewhat surprising in view of the very large numbers of Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs, Iranians, and other Middle Easterners now living in California. The Middle East receives about 5.5", all in grades 6 and 7, and focused on ancient Hebrews, Islam, and Mesopotamia. The Indus Valley along with the discussion of India is all lumped together in grade 6 where pre-500 CE civilizations are dealt with, even though the topics seem to extend to the Mongol conquest (called Turkish) of much later. Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, and other aspects of Persian civilization are ignored, along with countless other topics.

But the standards not only suffer from racial and ethnic blindness. They seem to also downgrade the historical experiences of the vast majority of Europeans and European-Americans who belong basically to the peasant-small farmer tradition, to the working class, or to the classes of artisans, small-shopkeepers, and so on. The historical standards' focus is upon the kings, princes, elites, wealthy planters, presidents, and other well-known persons who are almost inevitably male and privileged. The standards would have us believe that the struggles of the peasants, factory workers, miners, and other common folk played small roles in the evolution of "democracy." Instead, credit is usually extended to a document such as the "magna carta" or some elite empowerment such as the "Glorious Revolution."

Considerable space in several grade levels is devoted to the supposed evolution of democracy, individualism and freedom, but the focus is on the wealthy elites, and always on white people, preferably English. The well-documented influence of Native American democratic practice upon European thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau is ignored, as are the countless daily examples provided by Native People's contacts with their colonial neighbors. The specific contributions of the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois, superbly documented in the writings of Professor Donald Grinde (as well as by Benjamin Franklin) are left aside unmentioned.

But still further, the actual struggles of European peasants and workers is ignored. The Swiss "Everlasting Compact" from 1292 receives no mention, nor the Peasant Revolt of 1525 or the Anabaptists or the struggles of Scots, and Dutch, and Icelanders, and Norwegians, and Catalans of Andorra, and countless others to obtain free cities, constitutions, charters, parliaments, and so on. Instead, the emphasis is placed largely upon how elite males brought us democracy.

Students will be hard pressed to understand why the Delaware sachem Tammany was ennobled by the colonial masses during their uprising against George III and why Tammany Day (May 1) was a major holiday in the early days of the USA.

In any case, the Regulator's Rebellion of North Carolina, the Whisky Rebellion, and Shay's Rebellion, join the Luddites, Cromwellians, Brethren of the Poor, and urban rebels as subjects not mentioned or sectionalized by the standards. Grassroots activism by ordinary people seems to be insignificant in our history. The various farmers' movements of the USA from that of the Greenbackers and Populists of the last century, to the Grange and National Farmers' Union of our own, seem to be ignored. The growth of the Industrial Workers of the World, the Knights of Labor, the Socialist Party and its strength before 1920, the Lincoln-Roosevelt League, and the anti-monopoly and reform movements often led by women find very little mention.

In all fairness, it must be said that many sections of the standards appear, at first glance, to be ethnically, racially, class, and gender neutral; and, of course, a great deal might well depend upon how a given teacher or local school district might interpret a particular section. On the other hand, California teachers are not tested for their competence in Native American, Black, or Chicano history, for example, nor are they required to take courses in women's history or women's economics. Thus the apparently neutral sections are not likely to be interpreted in culturally diverse fashion.

Moreover, many of the apparently neutral sections are not really neutral at all. In grade 12, for example, (12.1) students are supposed to deal with the fundamental principles "and moral values" of "American" democracy, but, in fact, every subsection reflects only white European male ideas either explicitly or because no references to Native American, female, or non-European influences are included.

In section 12.2 students are asked to "compare the relationship between government and civil society in constitutional democracies with the relationship in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes." This might seem to be neutral, but will the teachers and students be sophisticated enough to know that regimes which call themselves "constitutional" and "democratic" may be filled with totalitarian or authoritarian areas such as Native reservations from the 1850's through the 1920's or later, Black segregated regions, "Bantustans," "company towns," et cetera, or may have colonies and non-self-governing territories (such as the Canal Zone or Puerto Rico), or may exclude entire classes of persons from voting (such as women or non-whites)?

Subsection after subsection, by ignoring the reality of life in the United States, that is, by ignoring the specific situations of Native Americans, African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and women, for example, creates an artificial neutralness which is actually a cloak to hide the existence of non-white and non-middle class persons.

In 12.5, for example, students are asked to explain "why an independent judiciary is essential for the preservation of freedom." This is clearly not a neutral question. From the perspective of Native Americans, who have had court after court deny them the status of "persons" in the Constitution, or of Black Americans who similarly were for a long period denied the status of "persons," or of working-class Americans who have seen judges overwhelmingly represent the business and wealthy classes of the country, the idea of an "independent" judiciary is a cruel joke. A neutral section would have to ask: "how can one obtain a judiciary which might be balanced between all ethnic groups and economic classes, and both genders, given the overwhelming difficulty of working-class persons, women, Native Americans, Chicanos, etc. to obtain appointments as judges."

Tragically, the sections of the standards which could be used to excite non-white and working-class students are designed instead to directly turn them off because they are so blatantly false or so obviously attempting to sell a particular ideology. The economics sections in grade 12 are not only boring, I would aver, but they are anything but multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and objective. For example, at 2 under 12.3 students are asked to "explain economic rights (e.g., right to acquire, use, transfer, and dispose of property; right to choose ones work, join labor unions, copyright and patent), how they are secured and their importance...." One can immediately think of a thousand ways in which poorer persons and non-whites have been systematically denied such "rights" and in which such "rights" do not exist at all. On the other hand, I am also concerned about the creation of the "right" to "patent" since we are faced with huge corporations and avaricious scientists now attempting to "patent" genetic characteristics which they never created, or to "patent" traditional Native American herbs, medicines, and biophysical formulas and materials, or to gain control over the world's plant genetic materials, or to copyright the works of creators who are forced by contracts to turn their creations over to corporations, etc.

Is there a "right" to "patent" and if so, what about the rights of taxpayers who so often have paid the costs of the research through Federal grants and generous subsidies but who receive no economic return? In short, we are often dealing with the ideology of advancing the interests of investors and powerful corporations, not of the working-class or middle-class children in our schools or their taxpaying families.

In grade 12 I see no significant discussion of the "national security state" with all of its omnipresent secret agencies, huge budgets, masses of spies, investigators, satellite surveillance systems listening to many of our messages, other satellites capable of recording our movements, electronic devices of all kinds capable of recording our conversations, and, of course, a well-documented record of subsidizing dictators, carrying out assassinations, smuggling arms and drugs, and on and on. Isn't this one of the most significant realities of United States Government today, the dilemma of how we can preserve even a rudimentary popular government while at the same time trying to fund massive defense and security agencies which civilians may not really control?

Should the United States persist in its role of "world policeman?" Can we afford it? Should our citizens be expected to give their lives and resources to do so? Can we preserve "democracy" while being a world power? Or should we strengthen the United Nations or give responsibilities to regional groups such as the Organization of American States? None of these kinds of questions are dealt with in grade 12, in spite of the fact that many young men and women will be asked to join the military soon after their graduation.

Similarly, there is no discussion of the World Trade Organization as the new government of the world, a non-democratic government. What are the implications of GATT and NAFTA and the proposed MAI for the "three levels of government" discussed in the standards. Actually, the WTO is a new fourth level of government with the power to set aside laws adopted by any of the other levels of government, but the standards ignore this.

Similarly, the existence of Native American tribal governments with their own constitutions and judicial systems is totally ignored ( but then who is surprised at that!). The other territories of the United States are also ignored.

The immense "war on drugs" and the powerful Drug Enforcement Agency, the arbitrary way in which marijuana is outlawed but alcohol is allowed, the fight with the huge tobacco industry, other public health issues, the right-wing militia movement and extremism, the threat of terrorism and the equal threat of anti-terrorist legislation, the attempted assault on the separation of church and state by some groups, the issue of victimless crimes and their political and civil impact upon women (prostitutes, for example), homosexuals, and others, the failure to vigorously fight against HIV by promoting public health solutions such as the use of condoms - one can go on and on.

Another topic of major importance left out is the question of the impact of television and of the violence seen on both film and video; and, still more important perhaps, the increasing concentration of ownership of media of all kinds, including newspapers, publishing houses, film studios, music products, and so on, along with the appearance of bookstore chains putting independent stores out of business. The media has a decided impact upon elections and political discourse, so how can one discuss government and democracy while ignoring this crucial question: how can we have a free press and free access in all communities to a diverse range of books, periodicals, and other forms of media? And what are the implications of huge foreign-owned conglomerates controlling large segments of the US media?

These are real issues of democracy, significant ones, which should be taught instead of repeating old themes already exhausted in earlier grades.

At 12.12 students are asked to talk about the ideas of Alexis de Tocqueville, an illustration of the tendency to always look to a white male for ideas. But why not direct the students to William Apess, a Pequot American of part-African ancestry, and a brilliant first-hand student of US character? Perhaps he is ignored because he wrote seminal books about white racism and authored a study of five poor women, of various races. Apess is one of our great American thinkers, so why is he left out?

The senior economics course is a rather strange mixture of some economics theory with some very ideological concepts favoring the wealthy-investor class at the expense of ordinary Americans. What is largely left out are the kinds of knowledge which Native Americans, Latinos, African-Americans, and many Asian-American groups would want or need to know, along with women's economics. The so-called "market economy" brand of economics is presented almost exclusively, but in a very naive or unrealistic manner which ignores actual state intervention, subsidies, and other non-market aspects of the way most countries run their economies.

Concepts of "scarcity," "choice," "benefits," and "costs" are presented without reference to the values of Native Americans and others who place emphases upon sharing, simplicity, human relationships, extended families, the conduct of ceremonies, and other cultural considerations. Economic activity is presented as being distinct from other aspects of life, which may indeed be the ideological perspective of a certain school of economic theory. But alternative ways of looking at "incentives" and profit must be considered, along with concepts such as usury and excess profit.

Students are asked to "explain the elements of the United States market economy in a global setting" at 12.15 but the question of whether we have ever had a "market economy" should be asked. Most industrialized states developed their economies behind high tariff barriers and with all kinds of government interventions and subsidies. The business sector of the US even today receives massive subsidies and the government promotes the sales of company products overseas ranging from military weaponry to agricultural goods. Moreover, a good part of the US economy is directly dependent upon government defense and space spending, and congresspersons actively lobby for projects which even the Department of Defense does not desire. None of this is discussed.

The concept of how prices are set is extremely naive, since large mega-corporations have been setting prices for decades based upon market manipulation and collusion, coupled with advertising. The concept of monopoly or of concentration in a given industry or of the operation of inter-locking directorates, et cetera, are not discussed. And yet, the lessening of competitition in many fields is a major concern of observers today.

The idea that an "entrepreneur" might value the personal satisfaction of producing an excellent product through the working together of a close-knit work-force has no place in the economic theory presented. "Profit" is the "incentive," or so the students are to be told.

The concept of "command economy" is applied to Marxian systems, while the US is supposedly a "free market." (see 12.16 at 3). But from the perspective of most of us, the US economy is largely a "command economy" with most activity being determined either by government (defense, energy, space, subsidies, giveaway of research results, etc.) or by huge corporations operating on a command principle. The actual "free" sector of the US economy is not discussed because it involves small farmers, small business people, small entrepreneurs, organic food manufacturers, etc. Many constraints also exist on independent producers, of course.

Ideology is also expressed by statements such as: "explain the factors that may cause the costs of government actions to outweigh the benefits...." This is political unless placed within the context that a high percentage of the federal budget is used to subsidize business or for defense/space spending supported by the most conservative sectors of Congress. Similarly, also in 12.17, we read "explain distribution of income... and methods that federal, state, and local governments use to influence income distribution through transfer payments and taxes." This again is very political unless "transfer payments" include agricultural subsidies for wealthy agribusiness corporations and other subsidies of the wealthy classes, and unless the analysis of the tax system honestly compares the types of deductions given to businesses (such as depreciation, transportation expenses etc. ) which are not given to workers who also use aging vehicles etc. Moreover, many taxes, such as sales taxes and even income taxes often fall most heavily on workers.

But perhaps more important than these examples is the fact that students are not asked "what kind of a society do we want? Do we want to live in a place where everyone has access to adequate health care, to a good education, to decent housing, to a good job, and to a safe and non-toxic environment, for example?" Do we want to have extremely rich people, and lots of very poor people as in Brazil, or do we want a huge middle-class, as in Netherlands or Scandinavia?

The teaching of economics in grade 12 should revolve around real world questions, ones which are not answered according to a particular ideology but which are open-ended and studied in relation to ethics. But also the subject must be relevant to women, who as homemakers and caregivers, have often been denied any wages, benefits, or even any status in the economy. The fact that caregivers, whether men or women, often receive no recognition in economics is simply an indictment of a male bias. The so-called "welfare" system, which is really a misnomer, must be analyzed fully since it impacts a high percentage of our students.

But one of the key issues facing our society is completely left out, and that is the way in which technology is altering our economy faster than we can deal with the changes or grasp their implications. One crucial example of this is the "downsizing" which has resulted from robotization and profit-taking by management and major investors, a process threatening the job future of many of our students. Can we continue to robotize and still support the necessary numbers of workers? Whose studying this issue? What are their findings? So long as profit remains the only guiding principle can anything be done?

Other issues relate to the future impact of GATT and NAFTA on the removal of factories from the United States, proposals for shorter work weeks in order to share wealth gains with workers and to provide more jobs, and the question of who should own the labor-saving machines purchased with the contributions of both capital and labor. All of these questions seem to be avoided in the standards proposed for grade 12.

In short, we seem to have an elitist, upper-class approach to U.S. history, politics, and economics, an approach which hides the history, politics, intellectual life, and struggles of the ethnically-different and of the oppressed and less fortunate of all colors beneath a curriculum designed to maintain preferential treatment and privileges for Anglo-Americans of upper economic status. For all of its pretense to be interested in individualism and freedom, these curriculum standards are also designed to help create (or maintain) a command society, a social system where commands come from wealthy elites through their corporate organizations and through their control of media and government.

I have not yet seen a section of curriculum which would seek to have students study changes which could be made to bring us a society where power is decentralized and where huge organizations are brought under democratic control. Thus a command society is what is being offered, not a democratic one. (See my article, "Education for Democracy, The Humanist 27(2) 1967, 52-3).

 

                                                   Conclusion

 

The proposed standards are a disgrace to us as educators approaching the year 2000. They represent, by and large, the prejudiced thinking of a half-century ago. They make little or no use of the wonderful scholarship of recent decades, especially the scholarship of women and non-whites. Anglo-American males and other Caucasian males are given preferential treatment generally. Non-whites and women are discriminated against, along with several European nationalities who have contributed to the building of California, such as people of Armenian, Italian, Jewish, and Irish origin.

The standards are illegal, failing the tests of both Article I (7b) and I (31a) of the California Constitution. Moreover, it seems highly likely that the standards are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that "equal protection" is clearly being denied to women and non-Anglo-American groups.

My conclusion is that the proposed standards should be set aside or tabled until a task force can be selected to thoroughly revise them to meet legal requirements. Such a task force must be comprised of knowledgeable persons who are of diverse ethnic, racial, and national origin backgrounds. Half of the task force should be women. No one ethnic or national group should be allowed to dominate the task force, and persons representing working class perspectives should be included.

It would be a serious mistake to attempt to adopt standards which are not only illegal, but which also will continue the process of alienating large sectors of our youth.

 


[1]By "American race" I mean the geographical race or stock living in North and South America before 1492 and their descendants, commonly but mistakenly called "Indians." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun "American" as : "1: an Indian of No. America or So. America, 2: a native or inhabitant of No. America or So. America, 3: a citizen of the United States." Thus the term American can correctly be used to refer to the indigenous people, as well as to all other inhabitants of the Americas.