THE
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHY CONTENT STANDARDS
Captializing on the Goodness of Fit
Professor of Geography, Western Michigan University
There is little doubt that the national standards movements in geography, history, government, and the independent standards initiative in economics have elevated the attention given to those disciplines within the United States. Geography, for example, is being viewed for the first time since the beginning of the 20th century as a discipline with a measure of importance to the citizenry of the country. The consideration is not only that United States students need to be as competent in geography as students in other countries of the world, but that a geographic perspective enables people to recognize, address, and resolve problems and issues that face them as individuals and communities. Geography for Life (Geography Education Standards Project, 1994) is just that. It identifies the good sense and life proficiencies that are enhanced by geographic learning that enable students to fulfill their roles as responsible citizens both presently and in the future.
Amidst the fanfare, however, one major concern continues to resurface. Geography for Life is just one volume about geography in a country that prides itself on diversity. The standards are viewed differently by different groups, for example, parents, teachers, and politicians. As the late Richard Aieta wrote, "…those who advocate the loudest and strongest for the standards are furthest removed from the classroom," in referring to the politicians who initiated the reform. The practicality is that the teachers who are expected to implement the standards voluntarily are often equally as far from the content and concepts of geography as the policy makers are from the schools. This is a good example of both social and political distance decay, and geographers understand the concept well. How can the friction that results in distance decay be thwarted? What is it that can bring standards-based geography to the hearts and minds of teachers who range across nearly three generations of age, training, and teaching experience? I will use my own state, Michigan, as an example.
Considerable success has been achieved in Michigan by using Geography for Life as a resource on which to base state level content standards. This has resulted in two things: 1) It introduced Michigan teachers to the process of developing content standards using Geography for Life with its rich, rigorous content for K-12 education; and 2) it enabled the Michigan Geographic Alliance to engage teachers in the dynamics of geography as one of four distinct content elements of the social studies curriculum. Both were possible through the development of special projects sponsored by the Michigan Geographic Alliance which devoted considerable effort and made significant impacts in select areas of the reform movement in Michigan education.
One area has been the development of the Michigan Geography Content Standards and Benchmarks, which are one strand in the Michigan Framework for Social Studies Education. The Alliance, with a grant from the U.S. Department of Education developed and field tested content standards in geography. The result is that the State Social Studies Curriculum Framework is 25 percent geography (history, economics, and civics are the other disciplines), with parity among the four subjects. To achieve this, the State content standards in geography were largely drawn from Geography for Life reshaped to fit within the Michigan curriculum context. The State content standards were implemented in September 1998, and statewide testing of all students in geography is beginning in January/February and May, 1999.
The statewide assessments are driving the changes in schools at the 5th, 8th, and 11th grades. "If a content area is important, it will be tested," is a common adage in Michigan. By testing geography, it becomes important.
Are we making progress in Michigan? The status of geography within the schools, the extent to which it is being taught, and what changes are taking place is part of a baseline study underway presently to evaluate the impact of the content standards upon geographic education within the State. The Michigan Geographic Alliance, with funding from the National Geographic Society Educational Foundation, has completed baseline data collection from each of the 556 school districts in the state regarding the geography in their curriculum. The data are being used for program planning, to analyze changes that are occurring within the state regarding the geography curriculum, to publicize the status of geography, and to analyze relationships between professional development activities, such as the Alliance provides, and the performance of students on the statewide assessments.
In summary, the Michigan experience has been one of using the national content standards in geography as a resource at the State level. Just as a natural resource is mined, Geography for Life proved to be rich in geographic content and withstood sustained mining for concepts, big ideas, and skills.
In this way, the chasm between national ideas and realities at the state level were resolved. The top-down reality Richard Aieta noted with national standards was still there, but the practical application of Geography for Life occurred at the state and local levels of content standards setting and curriculum development. The Michigan Geographic Alliance viewed the state content standards implementation as a significant mission, and the work is well underway. The goodness of fit is not perfect between the national and state content and structure of the two documents suggests an academic kinship with the best of both worlds.
From Ubique
Notes from The American Geographical Society
Peter Lewis, Editor
Volume XIV, Number 2, December 1994
