THE EVOLUTION OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANTHROPOLOGY AND EDUCATION AND THE IMPLICATION FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION

TO GENERAL EDUCATION

by Charles Arthur McGill

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Social Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Master of Arts in Teaching

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida THE EVOLUTION OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANTHROPOLOGY AND EDUCATION AND THE IMPLICATION FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL EDUCATION

by

Charles Arthur McGill

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis

advisor, Dr. William H. Sears, Department of Anthropology, and has

been approved by the members of his supervisory committee. It was

submitted to the faculty of the College of Social Science and was

accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching.

~· ..

ltls"" ed Studies dat~~~

ii ABSTRACT

Author: Charles Arthur McGill

Title: The Evolution of Anthropology in Education: A Review of the Historical Relationship Between Anthropology and Education and the Implication for Anthropological Contribution to General Education

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Degree: Master of Arts in Teaching

Year: 1975

It is the contention of this paper that in the future more and more students in the undergraduate survey courses will be introduced to Anthropology; concomitantly students approaching teaching in the field of Social Studies are doing so with a background of anthropology.

Anthropology's growth has precipitated its incorporation in undergraduate requirements for students majoring in Social Science and

Education.

This paper will explore the ways in which anthropology has established inroads in education and their importance to future developments in our school systems. A review of anthropological theories of educational systems is combined with the problems or restrictions facing an Anthropological Education liaison. In conclusion we centered discussion on whether or not anthropologists can change the school systems with an explanation of ACSP and NSF projects produced under their auspices.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ABSTRACT ••• ...... iii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Historical Background . . . . 2 PART I THE ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW OF EDUCATION ••• 21 PART II CAN ANTHROPOLOGISTS EFFECT CHANGE IN THE SCHOOLS? 31

CONCLUSION • ...... 38

A Fundamental Paradox 38

APPENDIX I •• 42

APPENDIX II 49

BIBLIOGRAPHY • 55

iv INTRODUCTION

For the fact is that what we colloquially call mass education is a failure. And more mass education will not make it a success. What is needed is a qualitative, not a quantitative change. (Diamond 1971:303)

For the most part of its development anthropology has been

popularly associated with museums and universities of the super-

intellects. Few students have known anything about its actual

subject matter until they reached introductory courses in

anthropology at the college level. It is the contention of this

paper that (due to recent conditions and developments to be

discussed later) in the future more and more students in the

introductory courses will have prior knowledge about anthropology.

The evidence as I see it shows anthropology currently reaching an

all time high in public awareness. Concurrently more and more

students approaching teaching in the field of social studies are

doing so with a background in anthropology. Further, there is

evidence that anthropology is being incorporated in undergraduate

requirements. Coincidental with its public debut, anthropology has

also reached into the public schools. Public awareness has heightened its reception and the speed with which it has infiltrated.

This paper will explore the ways in which anthropology has invaded the school system, from public school to college undergraduate

1 2

requirements, and its relative importance to future developments.

Bailey (1973:67) has contended that anthropology has invaded

the schools in three ways:

l. Anthropology has assumed an important role in teacher education. This has evolved through regular courses in anthropology departments and courses tvith anthropological· content taught in t-lhat are sometimes called departments of social foundations of education.

2, Anthropologists and others utilizing anthropological techniques are studying educational systems and classrooms as structures to transmit culture.

3. A multitude of curriculum materials now exist, developed to facilitate the teaching of anthropology at a variety of grade levels.

Bailey's focus \vas only \-rith the curriculum production of these

contentions. This paper is concerned with elaborating on all

three aspects and illustrating the growing recognition of anthropology

in the academic field. Further, I will attempt to show ho\v our

methodology is helpful in research and problems outside of our

particular discipline.

Historical Background

An exploration of the early history of anthropology and its influence in the universities

Anthropology \vas first instroduced at Harvard University and

Clark University in 1888 and 1889. At Harvard the start was archaeological and somatological, for it was based on a program from the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology. At Clark University anthropology 't-Tas introduced as a branch of psychology. Consequently particular stress was laid upon the mental process, and upon the psychological aspects of ethnological problems (Nicholson 68:133). 3

At Yale, Professor Sumner developed anthropological studies

from a sociological point of view as an outgrowth of the Department

of Political and Social Science, with the first course emerging in

1885. At Columbia University in New York, ethnology was first

introduced in 1893, in the psychology department. At the same time

special courses on the development of the races were established in

the political science department and in 1896 physical anthropology was introduced in the pure science department (Cyclopedia of Education 1911:133).

By 1902 anthropology had developed in American universities

in such a way that, of thirty-one universities and colleges

offering more or less systematic courses in anthropology it was

affiliated with sociology in nine, with philosophy in five, with medicine in one institution. In eight institutions anthropology was

offered without special affiliations with other subjects

(Cyclopedia of Education 1911:132, 34).

Many American colleges had introduced full courses or partial courses in anthropology. The general tendency was to use

the subject matter of anthropology to develop the idea of the evolution of modern society from primitive forms. These courses were generally electives and their correlation with other subjects was inadequate. The general function of these courses was to expose the student to a wider view of history than is possible from a consideration of the history of the European race alone (Nicholson

68:133,ff).

Attempts were made during the late 1890's and early 1900's 4 to utilize the results of anthropology studies for the purposes of elementary and secondary education. The theory of recapitulation was stressed, according to which the development of the child would follow, in a way, the general evolution of civilization (Cyclopedia

1911:133). The occupations of the young child were similar to the manifestations of life among primitive people, while with increasing age the complexity of occupations was to increase in a way comparable to the development of culture. This point of view was somewhat short-lived, but the inclination to utilize anthropological materials in the early stages of manual training and also in connection with the teaching of geography, history and literature has remained strong.

The early history of anthropology as an independent discipline in the grade school classroom is hard to pinpoint. With the exception of history and geography, social science classes have merged into one discipline usually termed social studies. Human relations subjects had no identity as such and were simply absorbed into the single discipline. However, anthropological materials were utilized in a wide variety of ways (Cyclopedia 1911:132-34).

Many of the earlier world history texts open with a discussion of human origins and periods before the early rise of civilization. Man was first a savage, then a barbarian, and finally a civilized being. The savage depends almost entirely on nature. He secures food from wild plants and wild animals, he knows nothing of metals but makes his tools and weapons of stone, wood, and bone; he wears little or no clothing; his home is merely a cave, a rock shelter, or a hut of bark. Such primitive folk still live in the interior of Africa and Australia. The barbarian has gained more 5

control over nature than the savage. He plants seeds, has domesticated animals and uses some metal implements. Most of the American Indians before the coming of Columbus and most of the Negroes in Africa may be classified as barbarians. (Mayer [quoting Heath, "Record of Mankind"] 62:116)

This text fails to make use of cultural concepts and the material is of questionable accuracy; greatly 'oversimplified' is a

better description. Many American histories contained units on the

~~erican Indian. I find, however, that much of this material is poorly written, inaccurate and oversimplified. Anthropological concepts such as culture, culture change, and diffusion were left either unmentioned or unexplored.

These early educators at many levels were aware of the increasing importance of anthropology as a discipline and its potential contribution, but there was one important roadblock in incorporating into the curriculum the rapidly expanding discipline.

"There was an appalling lack of good materials that could be used in the classroom. In addition, few classroom teachers and school administrators had taken even one anthropology course in their teacher training programs" (Bailey 1973:69).

Two of the earliest books on anthropology suitable for high school use were People and Places by Margaret Mead (1959) and Four

Ways of Being Human by Gene Lisifzky (1956). The latter, neither an anthropologist nor an educator, nevertheless had a realistic intention: "I was thinking of anthropology as the perfect educational tool it is: a mind stretcher, prejudice dissolver, and taste widener. I could conceive of no better road by which to lead young students into the other social sciences" (Lisitzky 56:9). 6

The launch of. Sputnik I, the Soviet Union's first manmade satellite, on October 4, 1957, opened up a new era in American education. As a result America grew fearful of lagging both technologically and culturally behind the Russians. It required the spectacular to rouse American intellectual energies and earmark the schools for progress. Immediate action was taken to beef up science courses in all grades. This was followed by steps for improvement in social sciences and the humanities. The National

Science Foundation was the first to volunteer support for the development of new curriculums. The social studies programs received the greatest support from the United States Office of

Education with its Project Social Studies (Mayer 62:141). Curriculum efforts were also aided and abetted by textbook publishers anxious to capture the market swelled by a rapidly growing school population.

A few of the curriculum writing projects started in the late

SO's were extensive projects financed by federal funds, while hundreds of others developed in shop activities carried out by individual school systems at either local or state levels, with funding still arriving through national education acts. One important gain was the utilization of professionals from the various social sciences as consultants or even as project staff.

In 1962 the National Science Foundation (NSF) rendered support to the first anthropology project--the Anthropology

Curriculum Study Project--directed by Mrs. Malcolm Collier (Collier

1972:229) and sponsored by the American Anthropological Association-­ for the development of curriculum materials for secondary schools. 7

The project, which originated in 1962 and concluded in 1971, was

financed by NSF grants totalling $1,250,000. A long process of

experimenting and testing resulted in a series known as Patterns of

Human History published by the Macmillan Company (Social Education

72:724).

At about the same time Educational Services, Inc. (now

called the Education Development Center), with federal and private

foundation support, initiated a range of social studies curriculum

development activities, many of which drew heavily upon anthropology.

The U.S. Office of Education entered the scene with its funding of

Minnesota K-12 Social Studies Project at the University of Minnesota

and was soon to offer support to the University of Georgia's

Anthropology Curriculum Project in materials production for elementary

grades (Salzman 1969:124ff.).

As a group, these programs differed from most science curriculum programs and from other social science projects (Collier

1972:229). The individuals involved were excluded from revising or updating present pre-college programs because none existed prior to this study. And, in addition, the individuals and associations who sponsored and organized the anthropology projects held little interest in providing pre-professional training and encouragement for students who might want to enter the field of anthropology. For these reasons it was necessary to persuade members of the profession that anthropology had potential value for the pre-collegiate curriculum and that the profession was faced with an opportunity to contribute to general education. As a result only a minimal number 8 of anthropologists and imaginative non-anthropologists participated in the development of curriculum materials.

Three general approaches are common to the new curriculum organization. The first and most popular design is multi-disciplinary.

A widely-known project of this type is the expanding communities promoted by Paul R. Hanna of Stanford University. It starts in the first grade with the child's own family and moves out through community, state, region and nation in later grades. Hanna (1970:

47) investigates problems from the standpoint of a historian, political scientist, human geographer, sociologist, economist and anthropologist • The second type of curriculum utilizes anthropology in special purpose units, emphasizing the teaching of languages, history and geography (Murray 71:264). The third type of curriculum study employs a single discipline or partial .program. The units are based on a single social science such as political science, economics, sociology or anthropology. They are designed for use only as a segment in or a supplement to the overall curriculum.

Three important points are evident in concluding this brief investigation into the past developments of anthropology:

1. Anthropology is a relatively new science in the history of

mankind.

2. Anthropology gained early strength in the university

discipline, thus having minimal influence in its early

development.

3. Educators who were previously hindered due to a lack of

adequate materials are now aware of recent developments 9

in the emerging studies of Anthropology and Education and

their importance.

These observations reflect on current and future developments

of anthropology in the schools. A discussion of their importance

will occur at strategic points within this paper.

Is there evidence of a trend to include more anthropology

in the training of teachers, and what promising patterns, if any, in

both anthropological content and pedagogy are emerging in

undergraduate teacher education?

Several areas can be defined as stages of educational trends

to incorporate anthropology in current curriculum programs:

1. Teacher Education

2. Educational Anthropology

3. Curriculum Materials

The importance of social studies in the education of future

citizens is substantiated by an analysis of research and statistics

from professional literature on the current trends in certification

standards, trends in anthropology offerings at institutions of higher

learning, and teacher preparation in general. Anthropology as a discipline, in this spectrum, is part of the growth phenomena.

The National Council for the Social Studies, in their 1971

Position Statement (Standards for Social Studies Teachers 1971:847) opened their comments on professional preparation with the following statement:

There should be diversity and an openendedness in teacher education and certification programs which would leave responsible institutions free to develop experimental programs in response to the rapidly changing requirements of society, scholarship and students. 10

This bold and 'open end' statement is backed by a somewhat less

rhetorical restatement of their 1966 course work percentage range:

General education -- 25-30 per cent Academic teaching fields -- 50-60 per cent Professional education -- 15-25 per cent

This fails to indicate an increase in academic specialization,

although it shows a definite recognition of educators' increasing

concern with the situation.

The statement goes on to add, however:

Both elementary and secondary social studies teachers should have at least an introduction to the subject matters and modes of inquiry of one or more disciplines from each of the three general categories of social science: the synoptic (history and geography); the systematic (economics and political science); and the holistic (anthropology, sociology, and social psychology (Standards for Social Studies Teachers 1971:848).

This statement gives anthropology new and unprecedented recognition in the area of teacher education, and by its parallel structure places anthropology at equal level with sociology and social psychology. The 1966 report spared only minor mention to anthropology, referring to it as part of 'other social science courses.' Massialas and Cox (Lunstrun 1968:137) reported in 1966 the following National

Council for Social Studies Position Statement:

• area programs represented as teaching majors and minors in social science or social studies, rely heavily on history requiring students to take from one-third to one-half of their social studies hours in the field of history with the remaining one-half to two-thirds divided among four or five science fields.

A survey confirmed this statement, with several states including New

York, Wyoming, North Carolina, and Kentucky listing anthropology with

"other social science courses" which might be selected to meet the 11

requirements of a social studies license (Department of Education

Circular No. 230, Section 6, 1966). Investigation revealed that no

state required anthropology for teacher certification.

A number of universities were interested in the preparation

of social studies teachers. Many showed concern for the amount of

subject course work that was included in the academic preparation of

social studies teachers. Croenhoff (1969:1151A) concluded that

teachers of the new geography curricula will require background

course work in that subject before they can present it adequately.

Veltkamp (1967:1635A) surveyed social studies teachers in the three

state area of Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota. He drew the same

conclusion as Croenhoff: the new curricula will require updated

course work in the subject areas. In a survey of ninth grade

Colorado civics teachers, Hickenbottom (1967:1619A) found that those

remaining had slight formal preparation. Dean Lomis (1968:2949A)

found that only the larger Texas high schools had teachers with

graduate work in the social sciences. Sears (1967:2104A) failed to

find any significant differences between professionally and

provisionally certified beginning social studies teachers on measure

of their role expectancies, self-concepts, personal and professional

characteristics, attitudes toward education or ratings by pupils and

classroom observers. He did, however, find more satisfaction with

teaching among the professionally certified teachers, and teaching was more often their first career choice.

Charles Godwin (1968:3555A) surveyed a sample of 190

Nebraska elementary teachers concerning their preparation, understand- 12

ing and practices in teaching with social studies materials. His

findings indicated:

1. Less than half of sample had bachelor degrees.

2. Less than half had instruction in teaching social

studies since 1960.

3. Less than half defined social studies similarly

to leaders in the field.

4. Three-fourths of sample taught social studies as a

separate subject.

5. One-half of subjects were familiar with current

social studies objectives.

6. Most sampled teachers reported heavy reliance on the

textbook, reporting few supplementary activities and

use of few additional resources.

While many of these studies do not deal entirely with

anthropology, they do indicate a need for heavier preparation in major subject areas, and a renewed interest in teacher certification

in the social studies area. If the NCSS report (Standards for

Social Studies Teachers 1971:847) is any indication of current

opinion concerning the status of anthropology, then we can only

conclude that concern for certification standards in social studies

reflects equally on anthropology courses.

State certification standards are usually regarded as minimal requirements, with programs differing from college to college, and university to university. However, university and college programs do, for the most part, relate to each other and indicate certain 13

trends. A survey of university and college programs for training

social studies teachers may prove helpful for our current discussion.

A s~rvey of thirty-six catalogs by John P. Lunstrum in

1968 (1968:135ff.) disclosed some interesting variations from

established curriculum patterns which previously "characterized a

dominant core of one-third to one-half history and a modicum of

attention to a selection of other social science disciplines"

(Cutler et al. 1966:53).

The interdisciplinary approach is illustrated by the program

at San Francisco State College. The Department of Social Science

(Interdisciplinary) School of Behavioral and Social Sciences lists

as basic requirements in general and professional education the

following courses: Culture and Society . . . . 3 units The Development of American Institutions and

Ideals • • • • • • • 3 units

Contemporary Economic Society 3 units

International and Intercultural Relations • 3 units

Curriculum and Instruction in the Social Studies. • 3 units

(The Department of Social Science, San Francisco, 1966).

A multi-disciplinary approach is illustrated with the Northern

Illinois University Program. The program is called "interdisciplinary major" but "multi-disciplinary" might stand as a more applicable term. According to the catalog, the curriculum was "designed especially to comply with the needs of students who are preparing themselves to teach the social studies in junior and senior high schools." A minor in history is recommended with this pattern. The 14 r~quirements are:

Economics - 12 semester hours including - Principles and Problems of Economics I (3) Principles and Problems of Economics II (3)

Political Science - 14 semester hours including - Introduction to American Government and Politics (3) Fundamentals of Political Thought (3) Naterials and Problems of High School Instruction in the Social Sciences (2)

Sociology and Anthropology - 15 samester hours including - Introduction to Anthropology (3) Introduction to Sociology II (3) Sociological Theory (3) Social Science Research (3)

Total for major - 41 hours

(Undergraduate Catalog Northern Illinois University 1965-66:181, 182).

The modified traditional pattern is present in the University of Utah program. The catalog program includes a range of social sciences while retaining a commitment to history.

Social Studies: All prospective teachers seeking the major shall take the following Common Core of subject matter: Anthropology I; Economics 5; Geography 10; Philosophy 1; Political Science 4 and 5, or 10; Psychology 5; Sociology 1; Education 173.

All stude~ts earning this major shall complete a teaching minor in history consisting of 25 hours selected in consultation with the head of the department. In addition to the preceding require­ ments, students earning this major shall elect any one of the following alternatives, each of which is equivalent to a teaching minor when taken in conjunction with that department's core subject listed above:

1. Anthropology 90, 116, 155, 171, 177, plus any other course in Anthropology. (Total 21-23 hours).

2. Economics 3, 4, 170, and two additional 3, 4 or 5-hour courses in upper division economics. (Total 22-26 hours). 15

3. Geography 1 or 20, 155 or 162, 165 or 170, or 180 or 185, 113. (Total 22-23 hours).

4. Philosophy Sa, Sc, 121, 123 or 124. (Total 20 hours.

5. Political Science: additional hours to total 20 hours.

6. Psychology 61, 90, 122 or 123, 131, 142, 140, 101. (Total 29 hours).

7. Sociology 7, 24, 101, plus one additional class from two to five hours credit. (Total 21-24 hours).

(General Catalog, University of Utah 1964-65:96, 97).

Lunstrum (1968:135ff.) also describes certain courses

designed to relate anthropology to teacher needs~ A course in anthropology and a professional education course, "the Social Sciences and the Social Studies Curriculum are required at Florida State

University for completion of a four-year secondary social studies program (Bulletin, Florida State University, 1967-68). Elementary school teachers of social studies participate in a course entitled

"Sociology, Social Psychology and Cultural Anthropology in

Elementary Social Studies" (General Bulletin, Hofstra University

1966-67:89). Hofstra University has developed a course called

"Anthropology and the Social Studies," a graduate student seminar for social studies teachers. Numerous other courses of this nature are presently offered in nationwide colleges and universities. Lunstrum's study, although valuable, is over six years old.

A look at the same university catalogs showing this year's offerings reveals that no changes have occurred in their basic programs.

Actual statistics lend further support to our argument. In 1963, Gabriel Lasker (1963:14) charted earned degrees, by level, in 16

anthropology and all subjects in institutions of higher education in

the United States (see chart on following page). The chart shows a

definite increase in per cent of anthropology degrees offered (at all

degree levels) in comparison to total degrees granted in all subject

areas. The total degrees granted moves from 168 to 433 at the

Bachelor's level, from 43 to 115 at the Master's level·, and from 16

to 55 at the Doctorate level. A look at statistics from 1969-1970 gives us a more revealing

insight. Earned bachelor's degrees in anthropology for the year

totaled 3,711 as compared to 433 in 1958-59; earned master's degrees

in anthropology for the year totaled 664 as compared to 115 in

1958-59; and doctorate degrees for the year totaled 215 as compared

to 55 in 1958-59. This shows a total of 4,590 earned degrees in

anthropology for 1969-70, an increase of over 700 per cent when

compared to the total of 603 earned degrees in anthropology for

1958-59 (Earned Degrees Conferred: 1969-70:570).

In comparing the numbers of institutions giving anthropology degrees in the period 1947-59, there were 91 institutions granting anthropology degrees, with 66 of the 91 institutions granting over

97 per cent of all anthropology degrees awarded in the United States during the 12-year period covered (Lasker 1963:10). The 66 particular institutions mentioned were:

Arizona University of Arizona

Arkansas University of Arkansas

California Sacramento State College San Francisco State College Stanford University University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis BACHELOR'S AND FIRST MASTER'S EXCEPT FIRST DOCTOR'S DEGREES

Per Al Per All Sub- Ar!thropo1- Per

- --- - Cent je------.;ent jects No. o~:l No • Cent 1947-48 272,311 168 .062 42,449 43 .101 3,989 16 .401 1948-49 366,698 299 .082 50,763 61 .120 5,050 19 .376 1949-50 433,734 324 .075 58,219 82 .141 6,633 34 .513 1950-51 384,352 255 .066 65,132 67 .103 7,338 51 .695

' 1951-52 331,924 257 .077 63,587 76 .120 7,683 37 .482

1-' 1952-53 304,857 214 .070 61,023 85 .139 8,309 33 .397 '"-I 1953-54 292,880 265 .090 56,823 94 .165 8,996 46 .511

1954-55 287,401 280 .097 58,204 87 .149 8,840 44 .498 I

1955-56 311,298 308 .099 59,294 78 .132 8,903 47 .528 '

1956-57 340,347 350 .103 61,955 77 .124 8,756 49 .560 1957-58 365,748 359 .098 65,614 118 .180 8,942 51 .570 1958-59 385,151 433 .112 69,497 115 .165 9,360 55 .588 --~------

Chart taken from Gabriel v1. Lasker' "A Survey of Catalog Listings in Anthropology, II Resources for the Teaching of Anthropology, ed. by David G. Mandelbaum, Gabriel W. Lasker, Ethel M. Albert (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963), p. 14. 18

University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Riverside University of California, Santa Barbara University of Southern California

Colorado University of Colorado University of Denver

Connecticut Yale University

Dist. of Columbia American University Catholic University of America

Florida Florida State University University of Florida

Hawaii University of Hawaii

Illinois Northwestern University Southern Illinois University University of Chicago University of Illinois Wheaton College

Indiana Indiana University

Kansas University of Kansas

Kentucky University of Kentucky

Louisiana Tulane University

Maryland Goucher College

Massachusetts Brandeis University Harvard University

Michigan Michigan State University University of Michigan Wayne State University

Minnesota University of Minnesota

Missouri University of Missouri

Montana Montana State University

Nebraska University of Nebraska

New Mexico University of New Mexico 19

New York Brooklyn College City College, City of New York Columbia University Cornell University Fordham University Hamilton College Hunter College, City of New York New York University Queens College, City of New York Syracuse University Vassar College

North Carolina University of North Carolina

Ohio Ohio State University

Oklahoma University of Oklahoma

Oregon Reed College University of Oregon

Pennsylvania Bryn Mawr University of Pennsylvania

Texas Texas Technological Institute University of Texas

Utah University of Utah

Virginia University of Virginia

Washington Washington State University

University of Washington f.,, I'

Wisconsin Beloit College Lawrence College University of Wisconsin

The 1972 listings from The College Blue Book (1972) expand this list to include 220 universities and colleges that are currently offering anthropology degrees. These universities and colleges are listed in Appendix II. The chart outlines the evolution of anthropology and the addition of anthropology to more colleges and universities in each state previously mentioned and the addition of sixteen or more states to the original lists. We can draw a conclusion 20 from this that anthropology is gaining ground in college and university programs throughout the country. Anthropology is offered as part of the required social science program indicating more and more students approaching teaching in the field of social studies and several other related disciplines are doing so with a background in anthropology. PART I

THE ANTHROPOLOGIST'S VIEW OF EDUCATION

. . • Any critical and cultural interpretation of the crisis in education must reach to the root of our society. (Diamond 1971:305)

Before examining the influence that anthropologists have had on our educational system, a look at the anthropologist's theory of our educational system and how it works, what he so appropriately terms the "cultured foundations of education," is necessary. Clara

K. Nicholson aptly states their viewpoint in her recent book,

Anthropology and Education (1968:2lff.). Miss Nicholson feels that, like other animals, man inherits his capacity to learn as well as certain biological drives which may predispose him to various activities. An overwhelming amount of his behavior, however, is accounted for only in terms of socially acquired, culturally determined, and ~ransmitted patterns of action and thinking. Man's inherent animal instincts are constantly controlled and shaped by acquired habit systems. These behavior patterns are the direct result of interstimulation with other human beings.

Geneticists are at odds over exactly what hereditary factors determine the phenotype but are in accord that every living organism is modified by its environment. Psychologists, regardless of their

21 22 theoretical persuasions, are generally agreed that it is the

combination of intellectual, emotional and psychological experience

that results in the individual. According to Nicholson,

anthropologists feel that the specific patterning of interstimulation

and the kinds of behavior allowed in any given society are all part

of his cultural heritage. It can incorporate into each man's behavior

only if it is presented to him, and if he, in turn, learns it. Thus,

in the anthropologist's scheme of .things culture is learned behavior,

and education is the process of transmission of culture. Culture is

education and it may follow as Durkheim states that education can do

no more than reflect society (Kneller 1964). Every culture

structures its educational system to teach behavior which the group

finds desirable. In this fashion, with allowances for individuality,

each person is molded into a representative of his group and his

society.

The anthropologist feels that if any cultural mode of life

is continued each society must establish some means for the

transmission of its customs, beliefs and knowledge, i.e., education.

To the anthropologist the term education means more than schooling.

In a society such as ours, the schools undertake a large part of the

responsibility for transmitting our cultural accumulation. Many

peoples fail to have or even need schools. In these societies, behavioral requirements are taught by relatives or peers, in the context of daily activities. Neither are schools viewed by the anthropologist as the only means of indoctrination in our society.

Child and adult are continuously exposed to influences outside the formal school structure, a process Cohen (1969:25) refers to as 23

" 'socialization'--the inculcation of basic psychological patterns

through spontaneous interaction with parents, siblings, and

others" that constantly present various forms of cultural behavior.*

In the viewpoint of the anthropologist, then, this total

accumulation of learned behavior makes us twentieth-century man.

Similarly, various behavioral patterns preferred and taught by other peoples stamp their members as belonging to their culture. The enculturation of a society on its future members is one of the major tasks of education.

The cultural anthropologist is probably the most closely associated with the field of education, because in its broadest usage education is the transmission of both implicit and explicit cultural behavior to members of a society (Nicholson 1968:73). And in a narrower sense, to the anthropologist, our formal school system is a cultural phenomenon.

In any society, its members are both the creators and the recipients of education. But in our society the formal school system represents a direct and major part of our cultural prescriptives and

*Without going into exhaustive explanations it should be noted that Cohen distinguishes between socialization and education in sharp delineation: "My point of departure is that socialization and education are two fundamentally different processes in shaping the mind ••• their quantitative roles in preparing individuals for participation in adult cultural life vary from one society to another. I hypothesize that the quantitative role played by socialization in the development of the individual is in direct proportion to the extent to which the network of kin relations coincides with the network of personal relations. Correlatively, education tends to increase proportionately with the degree to which the network of kin relations fails to coincide with the network of of personal relations. 24

alternatives. It is impossible to measure the part learned indirectly,

but the processes underlying education as a formal system can be

observed.

Cohen states (1971:19) that

• more than being a series of habits and patches of exotic customs, of ways of earning a livelihood, or being clothed and adorned anthropologists learned that the essence of a culture is to be sought in the material and intellectual symbols to which people respond in their social relations and in meeting their basic necessities.

Education is present in all social systems but the quantitative

role of education as a formal system is correlatively higher the more

complex the society. This places the responsibility to assure culture

in our society as a self-perpetuating system in the realm of our

school system. Anthropologists feel that teachers must present

certain behavioral patterns to increase the cooperative behavioral

experiences that the·young have together. The more behavior presented

in common, the more effectively the young adjust to their environment

and to each other. In the final analysis, the anthropologist sees the major goal of education as a striving to give old and young alike habits and patterns of behavior by which they may live and adjust to change.

In the processes underlying the evolution of social organization the conviction has strengthened among anthropologists that it is the population, rather than the individual, that is the adaptive unit. (Cohen 1971:20)

It is with this viewpoint that the anthropologist has worked his way into the school system and attempted to improve and change its structure. 25

Although • education is found in all societies it begins to assume a predominant role in the cause of history when it is institutionalized in schools. Considered as techniques of society for molding the individual to serve the aims of the social system, • socialization and education are in competition. " (Cohen 1971:36)

In reviewing the current gamut of anthropological studies of education, three basic slants are determined which the research seems to reflect. The researchers divide themselves between examining:

1) the schools and their relations with the socio-cultural milieux in which they exist, 2) arriving at description and analysis of classroom processes, 3) and the study of individual pupils and educators. The positive and negative factors of various researchers' findings are assessed here with a followup on methodological blunders apparent in the studies. Some direction for future research is also explored.

Examining schools and their socio-cultural milieux is an approach similar to that used in traditional anthropologist studies of communities. In this type of study, field work is the key point of emphasis, both in the educational setting as well as in the community at large. Historical analysis is considered indispensable as initial groundwork, as without it understanding the system's adaptation to the socio-cultural environment is impossible.

John Singleton in his studies viewed the school itself as a community. He looked at the Nichu school as a group of individuals bound together by common interests and loyalties in interaction with other communities; namely, the local community of persons residing in the school district, the administrative community of the school, and 26

the professional community of Japanese teachers (Singleton 1968:

85-92). Other critics view the school as only one of the enculturative

devices affecting the child. Sindell (1968:83-92) observed Cree

Indian children from northern Quebec in a residential school, in the

bush with their parents and at a trading post. His study revealed

how conflicts in cultural values, role expectations and types of

interpersonal relationships affect adaptation to schools and academic

learning. Burger (1968) also worked with this concept. His manual

on cultural differences betweenAnglo, Spanish, American, and Amerindian groups in Southwestern United States gives teachers a

guideline for the use of culturally appropriate methods and curricular material.

Other studies in this area explore the relationship between

the school and its socio-cultural context. Wolcott pursued a study

in 1967 of the Kwakiutl, which demonstrated how teachers with cultural backgrounds different from those of their students and the community of the schools are stymied in their educative efforts (Wolcott 1969).

The prime virtue of the community-oriented approach is that it leads the anthropologist to explore in detail the ties between the school and its socio-cultural context. Sindell emphasized "the many ways in which teaching and learning in a school are affected by social and cultural processes occurring in the surrounding milieu, ranging from familial socialization to urbanization and modernization" (Sindell 1969:595).

On the other side, however, it appears that the details gathered are insufficiently complete in any one problem area for 27 interpretive generalizations. Sindell suggests a research team as a possible solution to the problem with configurative understanding retained but empirical precision of the results increased (Sindell

1969:596). Another criticism is the anthropologist's bias toward the teacher's view of reality. Only a few of the studies investigated (Wax, Wax and Dumont, 1964, and Spindler, 1969) were based on extensive interaction with children in the varying social situations.

In the second major research strategy, the anthropologist collects and analyzes incoming data about classroom processes.

Investigators utilizing this method either study an extensive sample of classrooms or intensely examine one classroom. As Sindell (1969:

598) points out, Eleanor Burke Leacock "contrasted two classes in each of four different schools serving students from low-income white, middle-income white, low-income black, middle-income black classes." Data was gathered simultaneously by two observers, during three observation periods. Teacher interviews and pupil questionnaires were also used (Leacock 1969). Project TRUE also relied on brief observations and a series of interviews in a collection of urban schools (Moore 1967). Three factors tend to discount the importance of such studies as these: (1) adequate communication is difficult to establish with pupils and staff during such brief periods of observation; (2) the disruptive effects of the observer are maximized under such conditions; and (3) fieldwork in the communities of these schools was not adequately pursued, thereby disregarding the influence of the pupils' socio-cultural background. 28

Yehudi A. Cohen (1969:39-105) also utilized observation in

the classrooms of Israel and the United States, but his focus was

entirely different from previous studies. Cohen analytically pursued

the National Social Systems and their influence on the education

process. He held the opinion that individuals live less and less in

communities and more and more within national institutions. He

further argues that: "(1) the development of schools is a

characteristic feature of the state societies; (2) that state

societies need to subvert local sources of solidarity, loyalty, and

authority in favor of universal orientations; and (3) that state

societies need to legitimate their authority by creating a set of

uniform ideological symbols for their future importance" (1969:71)

Numerous other studies center intensely on one single

.classroom. In one such study conducted by Smith and Geoffrey in

1968, Smith, an ethnographer, and Geoffrey, a teacher, collaborated

completely in collecting and analyzing data and generating propositions

about an urban classroom (Smith and Geoffrey, 1968). The study showed

quite clearly how teacher-pupil interactions develop over time. Smith

and Geoffrey's use of teacher-ethnographer provoked a commotion, and

in the opinion of at least one prominent anthropologist exhibited a

technique that educational ethnographers should adopt whenever

feasible (Sindell 1969:599).

A relatively new approach, directed toward the study of

individual pupils and educators, was first applied and used by

Jacqueita Burnett (1969:1-10). She made a study of the ways

in which differences between household culture and school culture in an urban Puerto Rican area in Chicago 29 affect schooling. Through interviews and extensive observation, this method revealed how youths and adults view each other and how they view their problems. • • • Furthermore, it assisted the analyst in discovering the significant cultural differences which are affecting the pupil in his interaction with peers, teachers, and kin (Sindell 1959:599).

A review of past and present studies shows that for further

and more influential gains in the school systems, anthropological

approaches to the study of education need revision so that they can

broaden their scope to take in the full range of "socio-cultural

influences which affect the schools, pupils, and educators;

microscopic enough in focus to result in precise descriptions of

phenomena under study, and theoretically oriented enough to generate

hypotheses about the interrelationships of the data discovered"

(Sindell 1969:601).

In reviewing data with a predilection for ,.processed

entities' of a very specific nature, there is produced an unusual

. pattern for drawing conclusions: First, when one initially begins

to grasp certain similarities that appear universal in their

occurrence, he is very confident of the prediction his analysis will

produce. This is generally followed by a period of more insight and

a little less confidence. Finally, becoming overwhelmed with

information, less and less confidence is generated.

Admittedly, research has a tendency to cause this form of

intellectual myopia--information encountered of such intricacy that

differential comparisons of entities becomes increasingly

conservative. The resulting loss of freely expressed broad hypothesis

must certainly rank in significance with the sinking of a

philosophical Titanic. 30

The trouble with most conservative proposals is that they are

not relevant in promoting helpful action programs. They simply

demonstrate the critic's competence in general. Unfortunately, while

competence is necessary, it is not sufficient. What makes a proposal

responsive is having competence plus recognition of the real needs.

I say this not simply as conjecture but as diagnostic of

the available literature. Quite apart from the question of a critic's

general competence in his field, the kind of judgments many of them make are unilluminating. In trying to correct something only one

question is pertinent--does the judgment have applicability. PART II

CAN ANTHROPOLOGISTS EFFECT CHANGE IN THE SCHOOLS?

(A diagnostic view with possible remediation for recent developments in the field of Anthropological Education)

Not a single major educational innovator, directly responsive to the educational, which is, by definition the cultural crisis of our time, has been an anthropologist. (Diamond 1971:303)

Perception is a construct to explain observations of the world

around us. Some are theoretical and exacting while others are general

and considered common logic. Field work in education (envisioned

it would seem to be in the general category) has lulled some

anthropologists into dropping their usual analytical stance. But the problem of perception cuts across scientific disciplines.

Harry Wolcott (1971:99) combines an incisive and caustical view of anthropologist mishandling of school systems. Wolcott's review of the role of anthropologists as fieldworkers in education is

critical, and his proposals are at least in most senses of the term, bold. Wolcott states that many anthropologists harbor a hostility

toward formal education. He further contends:

1) Although a rapidly increasing number of anthropologists have evidenced interest in schools, relatively few anthropologists have actually done fieldwork in them (Wolcott 71:99). This unfortunately has not prevented them from presuming authority as

31 32

curriculum consultants. "Those anthropologists who accept roles as

curriculum consultants take a further step by actually intervening

in the system • • • " The broad question involved deals with the

ethics of this intervention. This problem deserves the same

consideration in the school setting that it customarily receives in

other contexts (Wolcott 71:100).

2) Many anthropologists have referred to schools as though

they were a single monolithic structure and seem to " • derogate

the educational efforts of the schools by assuming them to be

dysfunctional unless proven otherwise. Such an assumption creates

a bias that detracts from the researcher's usual commitment to assess how schools function rather than attempt to evaluate whether they

really accomplish anything'(Wolcott 71:100).

3) Many anthropologists accord different treatment to

different statuses within the schools. In reviewing the literature

in anthropology and education, Wolcott (71:101) "found few studies

in which teachers or school administrators received either relatively

compassionate or at least dispassionately analytical treatment, and

found fewer studies in which pupils and parents, particularly

ethnically different ones, failed to receive special, almost

'underdog' treatment."

4) The anthropologist performing fieldwork in his own society is faced with a twofold problem: " one, having to make the obvious obvious; and two, recognizing what it is that the observer does and does not know of his own culture." The tendency of anthropological accounts to dwell on differences hints at the difficulty of observing, recording and reporting on shared aspects of 33

behavior where anthropologists and subject hold similar expectations"

(Wolcott 71:103).*

The anthropologist's professional activities failed to lead

him to any great understanding of his own cultural system. What seems

to be lacking in the overall picture is objectivity on the part of

the anthropologist. In the words of Spindler:

The anthropologist's experience with small and relatively integrated societies sometimes gives him an extraordinary naivete about the complex relations in our own society-­ a society he himself may have escaped from--into anthropology. He fails to see the complications and looks for integrating features, consistencies and values where there are none. And as a consequence he may make outlandish pronouncements as to what educators should or should not do (Spindler 1955:20).

These problems may render themselves acute as anthropologists

continue to turn more of their attention to studies within their own society.

Before an exact process of the school sy~tem and the effect

on education can be outlined I would argue that education, as a

science, is in the pre-paradigm stages of development. This (following

Kuhn's format:l962) is characterized by competition between a number of opposing, distinct views of its nature. The paradigm as a guidance vehical identifies what sort of entities populate a particular universe. In addition it functions to demonstrate how these entities behave--the system.

With respect to the bold proposals of Wolcott's work he attempts

~olcott (1971:103) cites Becker's (1971:10) note on the difficulty of observing familiar themes. " ••• it is first and foremost a matter of it all being so familiar that it becomes almost impossible to single out events that occur in the classroom as things that have occurred ••• " 34 to identify these entities and several problem areas of investigation, to clarify the system. We can use this treatment to open up the questions of process and provide a blueprint to establish a more analytical base, " • • • to provide the basis for a useful dialogue between anthropologist and educators" (Wolcott 1971:104).

Four major problem areas are discussed as important to the work of the anthropologist in the school system.

1. Gaining Entree and Maintaining Rapport

In many school districts a researcher represents a threat and his study intimidates school administrators. "Among professional groups such as educators, where members tend to exhibit a great sensitivity to differences in hierarchical status, it is important for the fieldworker to recognize and to try to assess what effect the level at which he enters the system will have on the information he is able to obtain" (Wolcott 1971:105). It should be pointed out that if one is too readily identified with official status there is the possibility that cooperation from the subordinates will be difficult, and vice versa.

2. Reporting Back

"Feedback is more than an ethical problem in fieldwork. It becomes an urgent problem in the immediate relationship between observer and subject" (Wolcott 1971:105). Once a researcher has entered the system he alters it--he can never be completely an

'unobtrusive observer.' The reluctance of educators, both teachers and administrators, can be minimized if the data gathered does not find its way prematurely into the domain of education. 35

3. Acquiring Prestige and Status in Anthropology and Education

Research is divided into basic (the development of concepts) and applied research. It is popular to refer to basic research as

'pure' and such is the stuff intellectual endeavor is made of.

This misconception is one of the several factors that remain an obstacle against the developing interest of anthropology and education. Education is considered an 'applied' field of research and therefore not as prestigious. Anthropologists as a whole seem to prefer basic research.

Secondly, education is not often considered a legitimate intellectual discipline. Educators who have contributed to the field of anthropology and education are primarily committed to education, not to the anthropological profession. The problem is where they fit in the profession. "Their presence serves as evidence of an unresolved dilemma in establishing criteria for assessing eligibility and or competence in anthropology and education if it is to become a legitimate cross-disciplinary field" (Wolcott 1971:110).

4. Hethod

George Spindl~r (1955:13) pointed up the lack of any explicit method characterizing educational research. Wolcott quotes his opinion: "As for methodology, it is doubtful that many clear claims to contributions can be made by anthropology other than a devotion to informants and informal participant observation." The criticism was not aimed entirely at anthropological fieldwork in education but it certainly is apropos. Wolcott (1971:110) elaborates the point and directs it more specifically to our problem: "Educators themselves 36

can take the responsibility for conducting much of the research needed

in their field •••• However, the corollaries of holding educators

responsible for conducting the bulk of educational research are that

they must be competent with the methods they are using. • • • They do

need opportunities to review anthropological field methods to

understand exactly what the limits of each method are and when each

may not be appropriate. Like cultural anthropologists, educational

researchers also need to review which of the traditional field

methods are appropriate. " (Wolcott 1971:111).

Anthropology's pattern of development has reached a level of

science by structuring developmental patterned shifts of theory into

paradigms. Paradigms that specifically dictate a conceptual mode-­

particular guidelines or systematic orderings of procedure.

Education and educational research, it would seem, is in a pre­ paradigm stage (Kuhn 1962). Education needs a push to articulate its paradigm. This means more empirical work.

The anthropologist is offering his field research methodology, a methodology essential to any program of success. The holistic quality of his investigation is of enormous advantage but the pertinent factor to which his training provides the most beneficial results is his knowledge that change via intervention must be understood. Change, he knows, by its very nature is intrinsically threatening to a stable community (the school system). To prove acceptable to the system's acceptance of change, he must show that the advantages of innovation and disruption of standard ways outweigh the disadvantages. 37

Assimilation of change in one area can cause repercussions

in other seemingly unrelated aspects of the school system. The

anthropologist educator must sharpen the awareness that the

traditional education system is more inextricably intermingled and

convoluted than the placid, simple classroom surface would indicate.

In line with future developments, it may be wise to conclude

this section without an addendum on what anthropology can do for the

schools but what the schools can do for anthropology. When handled

carefully, the schools have provided and hopefully will continue to

provide important benefits to anthropology and anthropologists.

These benefits include the following:

1. Audience: Educators provide a receptive patron audience and an important market for the products and services that anthropologists can provide.

2. Field Sites: There are reportedly almost 90,000 elementary schools and more than 30,000 secondary schools operating in the United States today. Even if only a small fraction of these are amenable to anthropological research, here is a vital source of field site possibilities for research and for the training of researchers.

3. Cultural Processes in Schools: Schools are seldom geographically convenient but are particularly appropriate settings for research in cultural processes. They provide access for learning about American society and many of its paradoxes, a setting for the study of culture conflict and of the domination and submission of various subcultures, excellent arenas for studying topics of special interest to cultural anthropologists, and a remarkable opportunity for the study of stability in the face of change (Wolcott 1971:

111) 0

In conclusion then, anthropology and education do indeed have something relevant to say to each other. "Each discipline will fare best and longest by showing recognition of the other's integrity and offerings as its limitations in the continuing dialogue of man and his culture" (Wolcott 1971:115). CONCLUSION

A Fundamental Paradox

Anthropologists have failed to approach learning-­ education--if you will, as synonymous with culture. (Diamond 1971:302)

Stanley Diamond's epilogue concludes that although

anthropologists have been studying culture for close to a century

they have overlooked education except as a category--sub-category at

that--of culture. Research in education has traditionally divided

it into two aspects: socialization and formal schooling. The focus ·

on socialization (the rearing of children with attention to values

by the kin) created the sub-discipline of personality and culture but

the cognitive process for learning theory was overlooked.

Anthropologists rarely examined the curricula of schools in

societies they studied. Education and its mechanical processes of

schooling were considered an infringement of colonialism and thus non-traditional institutions (now considered a vehicle of social and cultural change). But surprisingly in those areas where formal schooling did not exist the actual process of learning was rarely studied either.

The combined field of anthropology and education has only recently been organized and analytically pursued. In anthropology this in no little means attributes to the effects of urbanization and the decline of isolated autonomous societies.

38 39

Anthropology's pattern of development has reached a level of guidance by structuring developmental shifts of theory into paradigms, specifically labeled as conceptual models stressing particular guidelines of systematic orderings and procedure accepted throughout a discipline at a particular time.

Educational research, it would seem, regards itself as too pragmatic to pursue something as nebulous as structure. John Dewey's struggle against the traditionally bound past-orientation education seems all but lost in the constant struggle between Essentialism versus Progressivism, Perennialism versus Reconstructionism, and

Neoaristotelism against all the other 'isms (Kneller 1964). There are significantly fewer people seeking new concepts in comparison to the vast numbers employed at either the critiques or reverification of existing concepts.

Perhaps the fault lies in the deference of anthropologists to basic research. Education lacks the esteem or prestige of other intellectual disciplines. Education is the path of utility or applied research. There is a popular misconception that applied or practical works are not as intellectually demanding, that they spring into action full blown like Athena from the rock of pure science.

Applied anthropology draws its structure from many of the social sciences. The difference however between 'pure' and 'applied' is more shades of grey than clear lines of delineation in model form.

The distinguishing characteristic of applied anthropology vis a vis pure anthropology is the manner of selecting the research problem. In

'pure' research the anthropologist chooses the problem to be analyzed. 40

In 'applied,' specifically in tackling a problem in education, the

problem is usually appointed by·the organization in charge. In

theory there exists greater delineation in that the product of

'pure' research is to add knowledge, whereas the 'applied' researcher

seeks practical data for a specific existing problem. It is

generally held that an 'applied' anthropologist's goal is the

solution to the specific problem, whereas 'pure' research is self­

perpetuating and part of a continuum of science to find the truth.

This is too simplified. Discussing 'truth' in science recalls

Dewey's dissertation on Means and Ends, that the end is merely an

action viewed at its final stage, whereas the means is part of the

same series but viewed at an earlier stage (Kneller: 1964). Viewed

longitudinally then, 'basic research' and 'applied research' should have no difference in reality but only in judgment.

The anthropologist is offering, of course, his field research methodology, essential to the success of any program. The holistic quality of his investigation is of enormous advantage and the pertinent factor by which his training provides the most beneficial results.

Essentially, we stand in the same relation to research in education, even today, that Bridgeman (1958) in his introduction to

The Way Things Are described man's relation to the physical world: understanding the world is important, but derivative. Understanding how we understand the world presents the greater challenge.

Understanding the world is not complete (and in our instance the microcosm of it as represented by the school system) may be entirely wrong--until we understand how we perceive the world. Einstein envisioned two components in gleaning scientific knowledge: one is 41 empirical observation and immediate apprehension, and the other is conjecture or theory. In research today this apparent dichotomy can be resolved and proven correlative by anthropological analysis. 42 APPENDIX I

Recent Development in Curriculum Materials and Teacher Aids in Public Schools as Well as Universities

The first major project to produce curriculum materials for the high school level was the Anthropology Curriculum Study Project sponsored by AAA which began in 1962. The most influential work of

ACSP was its production of student and teacher materials for secondary schools. Three books were published between 1966 and 1968, and a series of experimental multi-media courses comprise the contributions from the project to date (Collier 1972:229).

The three books include An Annotated Bibliography of

Anthropological Materials for High School Use (Gallagher 1967), a teacher and library reference; and The Great Tree and the Longhouse:

The Culture of the Iroquois (Hertzberg 1966), and Kiowa Years (Marriott

1968), two case studies of American Indians, complete with teacher's manual. The Great Tree and the Longhouse was written as part of a New

York State cross-cultural history course. Kiowa Years is a culture contact study which could supply data in a course to depict westward movement in U.S. history (Collier 1972:230).

The major product of the project, a 16-week multi-media course, was designed under the assumption that anthropology has a certain contribution to make both to the content and the pedagogy of the secondary school social studies curriculum. Patterns of Human History, the set of multi-media materials published by the Macmillan Company in

1971, consists of four separate kits. Each kit, designed for ninth and tenth graders, is the basis for a three to four week unit of 43 instruction in anthropology. The four kits--Studying Societies,

Origins of Humanness, The Emergence of Complex Societies, and

Modernization and Traditional Societies--each contain a book of student readings, a teaching plan, and either records, filmstrips, transparencies, photographs, artifacts, duplicating masters or combinations of these.

The cost of the materials is relatively inexpensive. A complete teacher's kit for Studying Societies is $33.00; for Origins of Humanness $60.00; for The Emergence of Complex Societies $42.00; and for Modernization and Traditional Societies $25.65. Paperback books of student readings range from $.60 to $1.50.

The introduction to the unit Studying Societies begins:

No one should want to restrict the right to acquire a better understanding of human behavior to a small group of experts. Such knowledge should be the common property of all. Access to that kind of knowledge is one of your most important rights (Anthropology Curriculum Study Project 1971:725).

The statement represents the rationale behind the entire curriculum study project, and the anthropologists who created the project. The project clearly intended to relate the study of mankind to students' lives and concerns today.

General objectives for the program are included in both the student readings and teaching plans. Each teaching plan also includes specific objectives for each lesson, relating to both the subject matter and the abilities and interests of the students.

The primary subject matter of these materials is anthropology-- the study of the nature of man and his behavior in context from past to present, with frequent shifting back and forth to maintain 44

contemporary relevance and interest. Economic, geographic, and psychological concepts are significantly stressed only to the extent that they facilitate each student's understanding of human history (Anthropology Curriculum Study Project 1971:715-6).

Primary instructional strategies are aimed at the development of skills in data analysis and hypothesis formation, both continually emphasized throughout the course. The strategies suggested to the teacher in the teaching plans were carefully selected to focus on these skills. The teaching plans are all very complete and designed for use as a learning experience for teacher as well as for students.

The developers intended for teachers to follow the plans as written, primarily because instruction of anthropology was a new experience at this time for most teachers.

The materials produced are designed primarily for ninth and tenth graders with a wide range of interests and ability levels. The variety of instructional media and strategies employed lend themselves to use by students of many different backgrounds. The developers recommend that Studying Societies should be taught first, hopefully in its entirety (Anthropology Curriculum ••• , 1971:726).

The trial use·of this experimental course introduced ACSP anthropology to schools in many parts of the country from 1963 to

1969. The first commercial publication of these experimental courses was a 3-week course, History as Culture Change (ACSP 1968) published in 1968. The final form was the 16-week course Patterns in Human

HistoFY (ACSP 1971) published in 1971. Patterns was designed for use in a secondary social studies 45

sequence, perhaps as the first semester of a world history or world cultures sequence. The course provides a broad foundation for

understanding of social studies in general.

First, it gives the student an analytical base for describing

and comparing societies. Second, it gives the student a basis for

seeing new significance in conventionalized historic particulars, and

finally the course gives students a social scientific perspective

which could prompt them to look beyond crises and personalities for

general significance and patterns (Collier 1972:231,32).

In recent years, educators are seriously searching for a way

to teach the social sciences which eliminates ethnocentricity in its

point of view. They have been seeking a way to examine the human

condition within a conceptual framework which permits teaching the

subject with equal success to elementary school children of various

different cultures. Man: A Course of Study (Education Development

Center, Inc. 1969) is one such study.

Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) was conceived in 1962 at

Dedham, Massachusetts, when a group of 45 scholars and schoolmen

called together by the Education Development Center met in an attempt

to improve social studies instruction for grades K-12 (Collier 1972:

230).

The course was designed for grade five (one year's duration) but is applicable through senior high level.

It consists of a set of classroom materials containing 22 student booklets, 2 records, 6 filmstrips, 23 maps, posters and photomurals, 3 educational games, Eskimo cards, animal studies, observation projects and work­ sheets. Data courses are provided in the forms of field notes, journals, poems, songs and stories (Social Education 1972:743). 46

Lesson packets cost $11.00 per student. Materials for the

course also include 27 films for use with a super-8 cartridge

projector. The films in cartridge form are priced at $1,750.00 and

constitute the major expenditure for the course. Also available, at

a staggering increase in cost, are 16mm films. MOst of the films

are in color and cover subjects such as the salmon, herring gull,

baboon and chimpanzee. The final series relates to the Netsilik

Eskimo (MACOS, Nov. 1972). Three basic questions were posed (Collier 1972:230) in

describing the rationale of this program: What is human about human

beings? How did they evolve that way? How can they be made more so?

The course, drawing heavily on recent research in the social and

behavioral sciences attempts to establish a base line against which

to examine the behavioral differences and continuities between American

society and other cultures. The program starts with a series of animal studies and merges into a study of the Netsilik Eskimo. Children are asked to compare man to other animals, after examining concepts such as life cycle, adaptation, group structure, communication, and learning. The course also deals heavily in cultural universals

(Collier 1972:230).

Through the introduction of raw data and inductive learning experiences, children are drawn to their own conclusions about man's humanness.

In preparing these two groups of materials, both the ASCP and the EDC assume that anthropology has a certain contribution to make • both to the content and the pedagogy of the elementary and secondary school social studies curriculum. The 47

anthropologist's concern for course content shifts the study of history from a narrow ethnocentric focus to a species-wide consideration of man's history. The anthropologist's view is concerned with the interrelatedness of biological and cultural factors (Collier 1972:230)

in the early stages of human development, and the relationship between

the individual and his culture. This approach represents a

comparative cross-cultural approach to the study of social data which leads to generalizati.cns about man--his history and his migrations.

Collier (1972:231) suggests that anthropological fieldwork offers the development of observation skills and the ability to analyze social information and see complexities of meaning, as its major contribution to pedagogy.

One other important curriculum project deserves notation here.

In 1964, the United States Office of Education funded the Anthropology Curriculum Project at the University of Georgia. This experimental project developed a series of units for kindergarten through grade seven plus five additional units for junior high classes. (Bailey 1972 :73)

The study analyzed 29 introductory anthropology textbooks and drew a basic list of concepts of prime importance to the different branches of anthropology, and these in turn were arranged into a spiral curriculum• The material was divided into a series of topical units in which pupils are exposed to more than a series of anthropological concepts and topics. Each unit includes case studies representing various world cultures, thereby providing each student with a look at a series of cultures, including their own.

This study, combined with the two curriculum projects previously cited, represents landmarks in the development of anthropology materials for the schools. The great volume of articles 48 in journals, periodicals and other published works indicates a high level of interest on the part of other social studies educators.

Studies reflect that all projects were deluged with inquiries. The

Georgia project alone received over 3,000 requests for information in the five-year period of investigation (Bailey 1973:73). In the same period 5,172 sample sets and 594 classroom sets were sold to inquiring schools (Bailey 1973:73).

Probably the greatest impact of the anthropology projects is stimulation of interest in anthropology for the commercial publishing concerns of school materials. It is impossible in a paper of this duration to list every item ever published for school use to date.

Current listings of this year's publications are incomplete and unavailable to this date. The majority of materials now in use in the public schools can·be found in the Learning Directory 1970-71,

1972-3 Supplement.

Perusing the Directory the following points become salient:

1. The majority of materials in use were published during

the past five years.

2. Multi-media units, films, filmstrips, and sound recordings

are becoming increasingly popular.

3. The wide variety of materials now available is an

indication that teachers all over the nation are demanding

and getting more and better anthropology materials for the

schools--publishers are taking their cue. 49 APPENDIX II

Alabama University of Alabama University of Alabama, Birmingham Alaska Alaska Methodist University University of Alaska Arizona Arizona State University University of Arizona Northern Arizona University Prescott College Arkansas University of Arkansas California California Lutheran College California State College, Dominguez Hills California State College, Fullerton California State College, Hayward California State College, Long Beach California State College, Los Angeles California State College, San Bernardino University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Riverside University of California, San Diego University of California, Santa Barbara University of California, Santa Cruz Chapman College Chicao State College Claremont Graduate School and University Center Fresno State College Loma Linda University Montclair College: Cluster of Los Angeles University Pitzer College Pomona College Sacramento State College San Diego State College San Fernando Valley State College San Francisco State College University of San Francisco San Gabriel University San Jose State College Sonoma State College Southern California, Univ. of Stanford University Stanislaus State College Western University 50 Colorado Colorado College Colorado State University Colorado, University of Denver, University of Fort Lewis College Northern Colorado, Univ. of Southern Colorado State College

Connecticut Central Connecticut State College Connecticut, University of Wesleyan University Yale University

Delaware Delaware, Univ. of

District of Columbia American University Catholic University of America George Washington University

Florida Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Florida Atlantic University Florida Presbyterian College Florida State University Florida, Univ. of Rollins College South Florida, Univ. of

Georgia Atlanta University Georgia State University Georgia University

Guam University of Guam

Hawaii Hawaii Loa College Hawaii, Univer. of - Manoa Hilo College

Idaho Idaho State University Idaho, University of

Illinois Chicago, Univ. of Illinois State University Illinois, Univ. of - Chicago Circle Illinois, Univ. of - Urbana - Champaign Illinois Wesleyan University Knox College Loyola University North Central College Northwestern Illinois State College Northwestern Illinois University Northwestern University Southern Illinois University - Carbondale 51

Indiana Ball State University Indiana State University Indiana University

Iowa University of Iowa

Kansas University of Kansas Wichita State University

Kentucky Kentucky, University of

Louisiana Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge Tulane t~iversity

Maryland Bowie State College Frostburg State College Goucher College

Massachusetts Boston State College Boston University Brandeis University Eastern Nazarene College Harvard University Massachusetts, Univ. of Massachusetts, Univ. of Boston Mount Holyoke College Northeastern University Smith College Wellesley College Grand Valley State College

Michigan Michigan State University Michigan, University of Wayne State University Western Michigan University Carleton College

Minnesota Minnesota, University of

Mississippi Mississippi State University

Missouri Drury College Missouri, Univ. of - Columbus St. Louis University Washington University

Montana Montana, University of

Nebraska Dana College Nebraska,Univ. of- Lincoln Nebraska Wesleyan University 52

Nevada Nevada, Univ. of - Reno New Jersey Montclair State College Princeton University Rutgers State University New Mexico Eastern New Mexico University - Portales New Mexico State University University of New Mexico

New York Cansius College Columbia University Columbia University - Teachers College Cornell University Elmira College Fordham University - Rose Hills College Hobart and William Smith Colleges Long Island University Long Island University - Southampton New School for Social Research New York, City University of Brooklyn New York City University of City College New York, City University of Graduate Division New York City University of Hunter Division New York City University of Queens College New York, State University of Albany New York, State University of Binghamton New York, State University of Buffalo New York, State University of - Colgate at New Paltz New York, State University of College at Potsdam New York, State University of Stony Brook New York University Rochester, University of St. John Fisher College St. John's University Syracuse University

North Carolina Duke University Guilford College North Carolina University - Chapel Hill Wake Forest University 53

Ohio Antioch College Case Western Reserve University Cincinnati, University of Kent State University Miami University Ohio State University Toledo, University of Youngstown State University

Oklahoma Oklahoma, University of Tulsa, University of

Oregon Eastern Oregon College Lewis and Clark College Portland State University Willamette University

Pennsylvania Bucknell University Bryn Mawr College Cedar Crest College Chatham College Clarion State College - Clarion Campus Eastern College Gettysburg College Indiana University of Pennsylvania Lafayette College Lincoln College Lycoming College Millersville State College Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, University of Susquehanna University Swarthmore College Temple University Wilson University

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico, Univ. of - Rio Piedras World University

Rhode Island Brown University

South Carolina South Carolina, University of

Tennessee George Peabody College for Teachers Tennessee, Univ. of - Chattanooga Vanderbilt University

Texas East Texas State University Southern Methodist University Texas, University of - Austin 54

Utah Utah, University of

Vermont Marlboro College Middlebury College

Virginia Virginia University of - Charlottesville Washington State University Washington, University of Washington and Lee University

West Virginia West Virginia Wesleyan College

Wisconsin Marquette University l>Jisconsi'! State University - Stevens Point Wisconsin, University of - Madison Wisconsin, University of - Milwaukee Wisconsin State University - Superior College

Wyoming Central Wyoming College Wyoming, University of (The College Blue Book, 1972). BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anthropology Curriculum Study Project 1972 Patterns in human history. Social Education, Vol. 36, No. 7. Bailey, Wilfred c. 1973 Anthropology in schools. Southern ~~thropological Society Proceedings, No. 7.

Bridgman, P. W. 1958 The Way Things Are. Cambridge University Press.

Burnett, Jacquetta Hill 1969 Ceremony, rites and economy in the student system of an American High School. Human Organization, Vol. 28, No. 1.

Cohen, Yehudi A. 1969 Schools and civilizational states. In The Social Sciences and the Comparative Study of Educational Studies. International Textbook, New York.

College Blue Book, The 1972 Degrees offered by colleges and subjects. CCM Informa- tion Corp., New York.

Collier, Malcolm 1972 Anthropology in the schools. In Social Studies Encyclopedia. Macmillan Co., New York.

Croenhoff, Edwin 1969 The status of geography in the pre-service education of senior high school teachers of the social studies. In Dissertation Abstracts. Xerox Corp., Ann Arbor, Mich.

Cutler, Charles et al. (eds.) in consultation with David P. McAllester 1966 Culturelieets the brainwashers. In Anthropology in Today's World. American Education Publications, Middletown, Conn.

Cyclopedia of Education, A. 1911 McMillan Co., New York.

55 56

Department of Education, State of Kentucky 1966 Circular No. 230, Section 5, Division of Teacher Education and Certification, and other untitled state forms. Frankfort, Ky.

Diamond, Stanley 1971 Anthropological Perspectives on Education. Basic Books, Inc., New York. Earned Degrees Conferred: 1969-70 Institutional Data, compiled by Mary Evans Hooper. Higher Education Surveys Branch, Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. HE 5254, 54013-70-B. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Education Development Center, Inc. 1969 Man: A Course of Study. The £enter, Cambridge, Mass.

Florida State University 1967-68 Bulletin, General Catalog. Tallahassee, Fla.

Gallagher, James J. 1967 An Annotated Bibliography of Materials for High School Use. Macmillan, New York. Godwin, Charles Marion 1968 Contemporary practices in selected Nebraska · elementary school social studies programs. In Dissertation Abstracts. Xerox Corp., Ann Arbor, Mich.

Hanna, Paul R., Clyde F. Kohn and Clarence L. VerSteeg 1970 Investigating Man's World: Regional Studies. Scott, Foresman, Clearview, Ill.

Hertzberg, Hazel W. 1966 The Great Tree and the Longhouse: The Culture of the Iroquois. Macmillan, New York.

Hofstra University 1966-67 General Bulletin. Hempstead, L.I., N.Y.

Kneller, George F. 1964 Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Kuhn, Thomas 1971 Anthropological Perspectives on Education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London. 57

Lasker, Gabriel W. 1963 Survey of catalog listings in anthropology. In Resources for the Teaching of Anthropology, ed. by David G. Mandelbaum, et al. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles-.-

Leacock, Eleanor Burke 1969 Teaching and Learning in City Schools: A Comparative Study. Basic Books, New York. Learning Directory, Supplements 1970-71, 1972-73 Westinghouse Learning Corp., New York. Lisitzky, Gene 1956 Four Ways of Being Human. Viking Press, New York.

Lomis, Dean Constantine 1968 The relationships among instructional programs about communism in selected Texas high schools. In Dissertation Abstracts. Xerox Corp., Ann Arbor, Mich. Lunstrum, John P. 1968 Anthropology: Pre-service teacher education and certification. Social Education, Vol. XXXII, Dec. 1968. Marriott, Alice Lee 1968 Kiowa Years. Macmillan, New York. Mayer, Martin 1962 Where, When and Why: Social Studies in American Schools. Harper and Row, New York. P. 116. Mead, Margaret 1959 People and Places. World Pub. Co., New York. Murray, Thomas R. and Dale L. Brubaker 1971 Curriculum Patterns in Elementary Social Studies. Wadsworth Publ. Co., Belmont, Calif. Nicholson, Clara K. 1968 Anthropology and Education. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio. Northern Illinois University 1965-66 Undergraduate Catalog. DeKalb, Ill. Salzman, Ndenek 1969 Anthropology. Harcourt, New York. Sears, Robert Liston 1967 Selected characteristics of beginning high school social studies and English teachers. In Dissertation Abstracts. Xerox Corp., Ann Arbor, Mich. 58

Sindell, Peter s. 1968 Some discontinuities in the enculturation of Mistassini Cree childmen. In Conflict in Culture: Problems of Developmental Change among the Cree. Canadian Research Center for Anthropology, Ottawa.

1969 Anthropological approaches to the study of education. Review of Educational Research. Singleton, John 1968 The Ethnography of a Japanese School: Anthropological Field Techniques and Models in the Study of a Complex Organization. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D. c. Smith, Louis M. and William Geoffrey 1968 The Complexities of an Urban Classroom: An Analysis toward a General Theory of Teaching. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Spindler, George D. 1955 Anthropology and education: an overview. In Education and Anthropology. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif. 1969 Urbanization and Education in a Rural German Village. Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Standards for Social Studies Teachers 1971 Position statement of the National Council for the Social Studies, as stated in Social Education, Vol. 35, No. 8. University of Utah 1964-65 General Catalog. Salt Lake City, Utah. Veltkamp, James J. 1967 An analysis of the status of geography education in the intermediate grades in a tri-state regional area. In Dissertation Abstracts. Xerox Corp., Ann Arbor, Mich. Wax, Murray L., Rosalie H. Wax and Robert V. Dumont, Jr. 1964 Formal education in an American Indian community, SSSP Monographs: A Supplement to Social Problems, Vol. 2, Supplement 4. Wolcott, Harry F. 1969 Classroom Learning: Kwakiutl Style. Center for Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, Eugene, Ore. 1971 Handle with care: necessary precautions in the anthropology of schools. In Anthropological Perspectives on Education. Basic Books, Inc., New York.