Capitol Commentary

Bruce Craig, Director of the National
Coalition for History

“U.S. History: Our Worst Subject”
On 30 June 2005, the Senate Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood Development of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions conducted a hearing on The American History Achievement Act, legislation (S. 860) introduced by senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). The legislation seeks to authorize a ten-state pilot study to provide a state-by-state comparison of U.S. history and civics test data for eighth and twelfth grades administered through the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). During the hearing that was chaired by Alexander, NAEP officials announced that beginning in 2006 the U.S. history NAEP test would begin to be administered every four years. Furthermore, in response to criticism from historian David McCullough about the impact of the president’s No Child Left Behind initiative on the teaching of history, Senator Kennedy promised that when the No Child Left Behind legislation comes up for reauthorization, history will be added as a core element in the initiative’s teaching mission. Panelists who testified included historian David McCullough; Executive Director of the National Assessment Governing Board Charles Smith; Smithsonian Center for Education and Museum Studies Director Stephanie Norby; and Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals Field Representative James Parisi.

In his thoughtful remarks, McCullough told the senators that one of the central problems in the teaching of history is that teachers who possess degrees in education rarely possess the needed subject matter expertise to teach specific subjects such as history. He stated that history majors make the best history teachers because they are able to communicate a love of history to students. He also called on colleges and universities to place renewed emphasis on the importance of a liberal arts education.

McCullough also stated that, with some notable exceptions, history texts are often written in a style far to boring to interest students; he called for a renewed effort to emphasize the “literature of history.” McCullough then returned to a familiar theme that he often raises in his appearances before congressional committees—that it is important for teachers to focus on narrative history to reach students. McCullough minced no words when he pointed out the detrimental impact that the No Child Left Behind initiative—with its emphasis on math and English testing—is having on the teaching of history. Finally, he called on the committee to explore ways that school teachers can benefit from the superb educational opportunities that exist at the historic sites and places administered by the National Park Service. The national historical parks, stated McCullough, needed to be better tapped “as educational resources especially as locations for summer institutes and workshops.”

In his prepared remarks, Charles E. Smith of the National Assessment Governing Board reviewed the widely known NAEP assessment results relating to history testing at the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grade levels. In what perhaps was the most important news item to emerge out of the hearing, Smith announced that during the May 2005 meeting his board of governors a new history testing schedule was adopted. He said that beginning in 2006, the NAEP U.S. history exam would be conducted every four years—in 2006, 2010, and 2014. Smith also stated that as embodied in the legislation under consideration by the committee, the objective of conducting history assessments in at least ten geographically diverse states was “a reasonable goal” provided “a sufficient and timely appropriation” was forthcoming.
For the written testimony of the witnesses, please visit <http://help.senate.gov/calendars/all.html> follow the appropriate hearing link.

Education Department Issues Compliance Guidelines For “Constitution Day” Requirement

In an effort to comply with a statutory provision inserted in the final federal spending bill for FY 2005, in May 2005, the Department of Education (ED) issued guidelines that directs all educational institutions—colleges (“institutions of higher education”) as well as elementary and secondary schools (“local educational agencies”)—that receive federal dollars, to offer students instruction on the U.S. Constitution every September 17. The guidelines appeared in the May 24 edition of the Federal Register (see vol. 70, No. 99 p. 29727).

The guidelines stop short of requiring that a specific curriculum be taught; rather, they give educational institutions considerable latitude in compliance. For example, institutions may hold a campus-wide assembly, others may opt to merely distribute information in classes. Compliance will be on the “honor-system” as there are no plans to monitor compliance, and according to department officials, “it is too soon to speculate” what might happen if an institution did not comply with the requirement.

Some academics and conservative groups remain concerned the Constitution teaching mandate establishes a dangerous precedent for Congress in setting curriculum requirements. For further information, contact Alex Stein, U.S. Department of Education
at (202) 895-9085 or at <Alex.Stein@ed.gov>.

Congress Acts On FY2006 History-Related Budget Items

While fiscal 2006 is shaping up to be a very tough year for most domestic spending programs, history and archives programs appear to be doing relatively well, all things considered. At this writing, both houses of Congress have acted on the budget proposals for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Archives (NARA), with the Senate poised to act on the Department of Education (ED) budget which includes the funding level for the Teaching American History initiative.

For the NEH both houses of Congress have approved a figure of $143.1 million. This represents a modest $5 million increase over last year’s appropriation. In the Senate, supporters of the NEH were able to beat back a proposed amendment by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) designed to cut funding for both the NEH and the arts endowment (NEA) by $5 million each. The senator proposed transferring these funds to the Bureau of Land Management to help fight wildfires. Thanks in part to over seven hundred communications to senators from NEH/NEA supporters, in the end Coburn withdrew his amendment and the Senate approved a figure that was the same as the House’s recommendation.

The concerted advocacy effort by the history and archives community on behalf of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) appears to have paid off. On  June 21, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee voted a Transportation/Treasury appropriation bill out of committee that allots a total of $7.5 million for the NHPRC—$5.5 million in grants and $2 million for administrative support. This is significantly more than the president’s FY 2006 budget proposal which zeros out all monies for the NHPRC. The Senate is expected to concur in the House recommendation.

The Department of Education budget line that includes funding for the Teaching American History initiative has also been approved by the House. For FY-2006 the House has recommended $50 million for the initiative less than half its funding level for the previous two years. However, according to Senator Robert C. Byrd’s (D-WV) staff (Byrd, is the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the prime supporter of the initiative) the Senate is expected to recommend a figure at or greater than the $120 million set aside for the program in FY2005.

The recent action by the House Appropriations Committee on the FY 2006 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is also of interest to historians. For the Library of Congress there is a total of $543 million—a $2 million decrease from FY 2005. While the funding levels recommendations have been set by both the House and Senate for most history programs, several matters will still need to be resolved when managers meet in conference to address the outstanding aspects of the various pending bills.  The key issue of concern for the history community is whether the $5 million increase for the NEH will be earmarked for the history-based We the People program as recommended by the House, or not be earmarked for any particular NEH program as recommended by the Senate. Conferences between House and Senate managers have yet to be scheduled though they will undoubtedly take place in the fall.

House Votes To Fund Public Interest Declassification Board In FY 2006

The Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB), an advisory group that focuses attention on government classification and declassification policy that was established by law five years ago but has yet to meet, will receive its first allocation of funds next fiscal year provided the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations Act (House Rept 109-119) becomes law. According to the House report language, “The [House Appropriations] Committee directs that from amounts available in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, $1,000,000 shall be available for the Public Interest Declassification Board.” According to Secrecy News, a newsletter of the Federation of American Scientists, “approval of the funding would mark an end to an embarrassing impasse in which the Board has been unable to meet even though most of its members have now been named by the Bush White House and congressional leaders.” The board is not empowered to enact structural changes to the classification system, nor does it have any independent declassification authority. It is strictly an advisory body. Nevertheless, it provides an official venue to air concerns over classification and declassification policies. For a copy of the law creating the PIDB and to access links to additional articles about the PIDB go to: <http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/pida.html>.