New Report Critical of Lack of Reconstruction Education in Middle and High Schools

The progressive Zinn Education Project has a new report out on the state of Reconstruction education in American schools. Here is a list of the report’s authors and advisors.

The report asks four fundamental questions:

Do state social studies educational standards for K–12 schools recommend or require students to learn about Reconstruction?

Is the content that state standards recommend or require on Reconstruction historically accurate and reflective of modern scholarship?

What would an ideal set of historically accurate state standards on Reconstruction look like?

What are some efforts underway to give the Reconstruction era the time and perspective it deserves?

The authors explained their methodology:

Our findings, explained in more detail below, indicate that schools are failing to teach a sufficiently complex and comprehensive history of Reconstruction. We analyzed state standards, district-level social studies curricula, course requirements, frameworks, and support for teachers in each state from 2019 to 2021. We also surveyed elementary, middle, and high school teachers across the country and followed up with individual teachers and education professionals to learn more about how they approach the topic.

Each state summary includes: 

• A vignette of Reconstruction history in that state.

• A brief summary and analysis of the relevant state standards on Reconstruction at each grade level it is taught. 

  • We assess coverage of Reconstruction in each state’s standards as: nonexistent, partial, or extensive.

  • We assess content and grade standards on a scale of 1–10 in applying the Zinn Education Project standards rubric, described below. 

…This report grows out of the Zinn Education Project’s Teach Reconstruction Campaign, which seeks to address the dearth of curricular and pedagogical attention to Reconstruction compared to other formative moments in U.S. history (the Civil War or the Civil Rights Movement, for example). Although this report uses state social studies standards to discuss the limitations of how Reconstruction shows up in K–12 curricula and classrooms, we want to be clear that changing standards is not our primary purpose. Indeed, it is fair to say that we are working toward a vision of education that might very well make standards (as we currently understand them) obsolete. Instead, our hope is to motivate readers to advocate for more attention to Reconstruction in K–12 curricula and classrooms; standards are merely one vehicle for that kind of advocacy.

Key Findings

School district standards:

• Emphasize a top-down history of Reconstruction focused on government, politics, and policy with little emphasis on ordinary Black people and their organizing strategies.  

  Most Reconstruction state standards emphasize congressional and presidential debates, politics, and policies. Although this is an important part of the history of Reconstruction, the political narrative all too often leads to emphasizing the actions of white people and normalizing a theory of change that moves inexorably from the top down. State standards sometimes mention Black officeholders, though often not directly by name; instead, standards highlight the phenomenon of Black officeholding.

  The top-down approach overshadows Black people’s grassroots political mobilizations and lived experiences. Theron Wilkerson, a Mississippi social studies teacher, noted that “because teachers are often pressured to ‘teach to the test,’ fruitful discussions about Black political, cultural, and economic autonomy, the potential of radical democratic participation, and the destruction of Reconstruction is lost.”

• Still promote an inaccurate history of Reconstruction influenced by the Dunning School.

  Several states employ terms and emphasize elements of Reconstruction history that echo the discredited Dunning School approach. Notably, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Tennessee, among others, require students to “explain the roles carpetbaggers and scalawags played during Reconstruction.” These terms were used mainly by white Southerners opposed to Reconstruction to denigrate, respectively, Northerners who moved South and Southern whites who sided with Republicans. Although they are important terms to learn, the lack of explanatory context in the standards is troubling. By encouraging students to view the participants of Reconstruction from the rhetorical perspective of opponents of Black civil and political rights, these standards risk perpetuating a flawed and white supremacist history of the era.

  The emphasis in many standards and textbooks on evaluating the “successes and failures” of Reconstruction is also partly a legacy of the Dunning School. This distorted scholarship casts Reconstruction as an illegitimate, reckless enterprise that justifiably failed to sustain the rights it granted to formerly enslaved people. The school propagated white resentment toward Black people and their allies during Reconstruction and convoluted framings of “successes and failures.” For most of the 20th century, white supremacists often cited “failure” as an overarching inevitability of Reconstruction and a reason to deny Black people full citizenship in the decades that followed. Nicole Clark, a middle school teacher in Washington, D.C., expressed concern that curricula on Reconstruction still focus “more on failures and white rage than the advancements.”

  The “successes and failures” framing often neglects to ask “for whom?” and encourages inaccurate and white supremacist Reconstruction education today. It undercuts the era’s on-the-ground movements, disconnecting the actions of people from the consequences of history. It belies the radical possibilities, unparalleled civil rights progress, and devastating white supremacist terror that are all so characteristic of Reconstruction. It assumes a sense of passivity, often asking students to consider only elites or vague monolithic entities like entire states or bodies of government as primary actors building toward inevitable outcomes. In so doing, this framing separates the genuine achievements of Reconstruction from the coalitions of Black people who made them possible and the racist dismantlers who deliberately rolled them back. An overemphasis on “failures” overshadows the transformative nature of Reconstruction and obscures how white supremacists violently destroyed Reconstruction precisely because of its successes. It invites students to instead view U.S. history through a mythical lens: a gradual, straight line from slavery to a post-racial present, leaving them unaware of Reconstruction’s significance and unprepared to confront the nation’s realities.

• Rarely name or contend with white supremacy or white terror.

  Only one state, Massachusetts, mentions and directly links white supremacy to the rise of the KKK, the passage of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, and the end of Reconstruction. Only by grappling with the persistence of white supremacist ideology will students understand why so many white Southerners turned to violence to destroy Black voting, officeholding, and economic independence. Most critically, foregrounding the prevalence and political power of white supremacy will encourage educators to teach their students that Reconstruction did not passively fail, as so many state standards assert, but was actively destroyed.

• Do not provide clear and consistent definitions of Reconstruction.

  Many standards and textbooks do not actually articulate what Reconstruction was, and some do not even capitalize the term when referring to the period or project itself. Neglecting clear definitions throughout the unit leaves room for warped and white supremacist interpretations of the era’s leading actors and lasting significance. This lack of direction is often exacerbated by unsound instructions written into student activities. For instance, Georgia’s standards task students with comparing and contrasting the goals and outcomes of agencies like the Freedmen’s Bureau with white supremacist terror groups like the KKK, extending a semblance of moral legitimacy to people and causes deserving only condemnation. Coupled with nebulous terminology for the project of Reconstruction, such standards leave students vulnerable to ideological justifications for restoring white supremacy in the South. They do not recognize Reconstruction for what it was: a people-led reckoning with white supremacy and grassroots movement for multiracial democracy that reached every region of the United States.

• Limit the significance of Reconstruction to Southern states.

  Reconstruction was not merely a Southern story. The Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution fundamentally changed the definition of citizenship throughout the nation. Black activists and white allies fought for civil and political equality throughout the United States, striking down discriminatory laws in the North as well as the South. Although many state standards describe the enfranchisement of Black men in Southern states during the late 1860s, none mention that it was only the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870 that allowed Black men in most Northern states to vote.

  If classroom practice follows state standards, few students outside of the South learn that their states are often full of Reconstruction-era sites and stories. As just one example, Pennsylvania’s education standards barely mention Reconstruction. Teachers who responded to our survey described how they went far beyond the standards to lead discussions of the Reconstruction Amendments, literacy tests, and Black Codes. Yet, none mentioned the dramatic fight for Black civil and political rights in their home state during the Reconstruction era. Pennsylvania is home to a great deal of Reconstruction history, perhaps most notably the story of Octavius Catto, a Philadelphia educational, baseball, and voting rights pioneer who was murdered on election day in 1871. Yet, the state standards, which barely mention Reconstruction at all, do not treat it as an important element of Pennsylvania’s history.

  This failure likely has consequences for how much time teachers devote to the topic and how well students engage with it. One middle school teacher in Wisconsin noted that their students struggled to connect to the themes of Reconstruction because they saw “themselves as geographically removed from these events.” Yet, Wisconsin is very much a part of the Reconstruction story. Teachers could introduce their students to the stories of the Republican legislators the state sent to Washington to enact Reconstruction policies, the Black residents of Milwaukee who fought against segregation in the 1880s, and the Native peoples whose legal status was both strengthened and undermined by Reconstruction’s new definitions of citizenship. Telling the story of the history and legacies of Reconstruction in every corner of the country will help teachers make the case to their students that these legacies matter to their lives, no matter where they live.

• Do not address the enduring legacies of Reconstruction or make connections to the present day. 

  We live with the echoes of Reconstruction to this day. The 14th and 15th Amendments continue to be the basis for expansion of and defense of civil and voting rights. Their influence on definitions of citizenship and state protections is so profound that historians have described the era as a Second Founding. Reconstruction also provides a potent model of grassroots activism and multiracial democracy that continues to inspire advocacy and reform.

  Teaching the legacies of Reconstruction can carry risks in our politically polarized times. One North Carolina high school teacher said “by making the connections to more recent times, or discussing the rise of white supremacist groups, there are accusations of indoctrination.” A high school teacher in Washington emphasized that “polarized culture” and “parents not agreeing with teaching real history” imposed serious constraints on the kinds of connections teachers could make between Reconstruction and the present day.

• Do not provide sufficient time to cover Reconstruction.

  State standards encourage classroom teachers to either rush through Reconstruction or skip it entirely. Kerry Green, a Texas high school teacher, said the problem was primarily due to the “the scope, sequence, and pacing of the standards.” One New Mexico middle school teacher explained that, absent detailed standards, “not enough teachers see the importance of spending more time teaching Reconstruction.” An Illinois middle school teacher affirmed that “Reconstruction is generally the most skipped and summarized” unit in their curriculum.

  The placement of Reconstruction as the “halfway point” in U.S. history means that it often falls at the beginning or end of a grade year. Grade 8 history courses are frequently designed to cover the Constitution to Reconstruction (1776–1877, or 1800–1900), a formidable length of time for one year of instruction. High school history courses then typically pick up the narrative from 1877, but in some cases (for example, Arkansas and Utah) grade 9 non-AP U.S. history courses begin in 1890, meaning that Reconstruction can easily fall into a gap and out of the official curriculum. One Vermont high school teacher explained that having Reconstruction begin or end a year meant that students in the same school could learn nothing at all about Reconstruction or spend weeks on the subject, entirely “depending on individual teachers’ priorities and comfort” with the material.

Many instructors feel unprepared to teach Reconstruction.

Teachers who responded to our survey indicated that they had to do a significant amount of self-education to effectively teach Reconstruction in their classrooms. In some cases the vagueness of state standards allowed teachers to create their own innovative Reconstruction curricula. But generally teachers reported needing more support, not less, to improve their teaching of Reconstruction in the classroom. One Texas high school teacher said, “I would really like to see more specific guidance on what to teach about this topic. I feel like it’s so important to get this course right, but also feel like I am not doing an adequate job and have not found enough resources.”

States fail to set suitable standards for Reconstruction. 

State standards for teaching Reconstruction are frequently so vague and broad that, as one Oregon middle school teacher explained, “an educator could skip Reconstruction and still technically ‘meet’ the standards.” When state standards do mention specific events and people, they mostly emphasize top-down political developments and prominent white men. Standards rarely mention Black people by name.

A particularly common element in state standards is to ask students, as does Connecticut, to “analyze reasons that the Reconstruction era could be seen as a success and reasons that the Reconstruction era could be seen as a failure.” This success/failure framing is often used as a starting place or a broad lens through which to examine Reconstruction. As mentioned above, this framing is problematic because it obscures both Black people’s agency in the struggle for freedom and white people’s backlash and violent repression. This framing reinforces a Dunning-era narrative in the standards in over 15 states.

Teachers are concerned that ongoing political efforts to ban “controversial topics” from the classroom may block coverage of Reconstruction.

As of Jan. 7, 2022, at least 32 states have introduced bills, resolutions, or other measures targeting the teaching of certain “controversial topics” in the classroom. Twelve of these states have enacted bans through legislation or other courses of action. In addition to these statewide policies, in recent months there have been dozens of more local efforts to restrict what young people can be taught about race and racism in the classroom.

As increasing numbers of teachers have committed to teach outside the textbook, these laws and policies attempt to reinstate and indoctrinate young people with white supremacist curricula. Their right-wing authors and supporters claim to target the teaching of “divisive topics,” a shape-shifting term that uses the language of antidiscrimination to both shroud and strengthen a discriminatory status quo. For instance, Louisiana’s “divisive topics” provisions include a ban on the concept “That either the United States of America or the state of Louisiana is fundamentally, institutionally, or systemically racist or sexist.” In other words, it tasks educators with neglecting the very existence of racism and sexism and denying students acknowledgement of the real and present injustices they encounter. An editorial from Rethinking Schools noted, “By banning educators from teaching about these realities, lawmakers seek to deny young people the right to understand — and so effectively act upon — the world they’ve been bequeathed. These bills are an attack on democracy itself.” The same far-right political forces campaigning against accurate and anti-racist curricula have also ushered in waves of voter suppression laws as part of a sweeping attack on democracy.

Although conservative advocates of these antihistory education bills have touted their likely political effects on the 2022 midterm elections, they already threaten to shape classroom instruction. As Rashawn Ray and Alexandra Gibbons noted in a report for the Brookings Institution, these laws could have “a chilling effect on what educators are willing to discuss in the classroom.” Educators and advocates have expressed concerns that the broad language of these bills could compel teachers to shy away from discussing racism in U.S. history. And it is impossible to teach the history of Reconstruction without discussing racism. Moreover, it is impossible to teach about the unequal character of our society today without exploring what happened — and what did not happen — during Reconstruction.

In this environment, it is increasingly important that state social studies standards explicitly discuss Reconstruction. In Oklahoma, the inclusion of the Tulsa Race Massacre in the state social studies standards may preserve the topic in curricula, despite the restrictions of the new state law. Similarly, detailed coverage of Reconstruction in the required standards could provide teachers with a bulwark against spurious accusations that discussing Black activism and advocacy and white supremacist terrorism in the 1860s and ‘70s is a banned “controversial topic.”

Once again, I suggest you read the whole report. If you scroll to the bottom of the report you will see a map of the U.S. Click on a state and you can read the report on that state.

Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:

•