| This study focused on the role ideology has played in history curriculum formation. Illustrative examples were presented that demonstrated how history curriculum has been intricately connected with ideology. This study demonstrated how history curriculum often has functioned as a conveyor of an ideological paradigm and that ideological conflict was frequently present in the formation of history curriculum. This study showed how such conflicts were often couched in academic terms instead of ideological terms. As a result, debates surrounding history curriculum often failed to address the core disagreement in ideology. Consequently, this lack of direct ideological communication often led to deep division and mistrust between various ideological camps. From this research, the author concluded that it is essential for those who are associated with history curriculum formation to insure that clear ideological positions are articulated and understood by history curriculum writers, academics, teachers, and the public.;This study's theoretical framework was based on the assumption that individuals view the past through a "lens" of personal experience and values and that such "lenses" varied. Historical research was used to demonstrated both the conflict of "lenses" and the outcomes of those conflicts. This historical research focused on the time frame from the Committee of Ten Report (1894) through the National History Standards Project (1996). The study was limited in scope, researching those historical episodes that highlighted the connection between history curriculum and ideology. The National History Standards Project was used as a case study and was the culminating example of ideological conflict in history curriculum formation. |
