Promises to Keep: Results of the National Survey of Human Rights Education 2000

Dennis N. Banks, Ph. D.
334 Fitzelle Hall
SUNY Oneonta
Oneonta, NY 13820
banksdn@oneonta.edu

Introduction

                We are approaching the end of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education.  What is human rights education (HRE)? What actually are human rights?  Human rights have been defined as “generally accepted principles of fairness and justice” or “the universal moral rights that belong equally to all people simply because they are human beings” or “the basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity” (O’Brien, 1996; Flowers, 1998).  Simply put, human rights education is “all learning that develops the knowledge, skills, and values of human rights.” (Flowers, 2000)  The United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995‑2004) has defined human rights education as:

training, dissemination, and information efforts aimed at the building of a universal culture of human rights through the imparting of knowledge and skills and the molding of attitudes which are directed to:

           (a) The strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;

           (b) The full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity;

           (c) The promotion of understanding, respect, gender equality, and friendship among all nations, indigenous peoples and racial, national, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups;

           (d) The enabling of all persons to participate effectively in a free society;

           (e) The furtherance of the activities of the United Nations for the Maintenance of Peace." (Adapted from the Plan of Action of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995‑2004), paragraph 2)

Education in human rights is itself a fundamental human right and also a responsibility. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exhorts "every individual and every organ of society" to "strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms"(UDHR, 1948).  Although news reports refer to human rights every day, human rights literacy is not widespread in the United States. Students of law and international relations or political science may study human rights in a university setting, but most people receive no education, formally or informally, about human rights. Even human rights activists usually acquire their knowledge and skills by self‑teaching and direct experience. People who do not know their rights are more vulnerable to having them abused and often lack the language and conceptual framework to effectively advocate for them. Growing consensus around the world recognizes education for and about human rights as essential. It can contribute to the building of free, just, and peaceful societies. Human rights education is also increasingly recognized as an effective strategy to prevent human rights abuses.

                The universality of this recognition was formalized by the United Nations in its resolution 49/184 of 23 December 1994, proclaimed the 10‑year period beginning on January 1, 1995 the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education.  They also supported a Plan of Action for the Decade that was contained in the report of the Secretary‑General.  As the Secretary-General said, he was “convinced that human rights education should involve more than the provision of information and should constitute a comprehensive life‑long process by which people at all levels in development and in all strata of society learn respect for the dignity of others and the means and methods of ensuring that respect in all societies” (UN General Assembly, 1995).


                The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights further developed this Plan of Action for implementing the Decade.  That Plan had five key objectives:

                In  2000, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted a mid-term global evaluation of the progress made towards the achievement of these objectives. In that evaluation, human rights education is once again seen to:

involve more than the provision of information and should constitute a comprehensive life-long process by which people at all levels in development and in all strata of society learn respect for the dignity of others and the means and methods of ensuring that respect in all societies.” (p.4)

                Further discussions of the main achievements and obstacles during the first half of the Decade reveal that over those five years a large number of countries has incorporated HRE in pre‑school, primary and secondary curricula, either as a cross curricular theme, an optional course or as "attainment targets" in the overall curriculum. In many countries there is also a continuous stream of activities regarding human rights issues, initiated by human rights non‑governmental organizations  (NGOs) and individual schools and teachers (Elbers, 2000).

                For example:

Figure 1. Countries participating in the UN Decade of Human Rights Education shown in various colors. Non-participants are shown in yellow.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the United States is one of several large countries failing to respond to the call for the Decade.  The exception is the instances of NGOs or human rights organizations that are headquartered here. Human rights education in K-12 schools is not mentioned. There has been movement, however. Several state legislatures have begun to address this concern by enacting mandates for various levels of human rights education within their schools. The New York State legislature in 1995 amended its Education Law with regard to instruction on human rights violations, genocide, slavery, the Holocaust, and the mass starvation in Ireland.  A review of programming at recent Annual Meetings of the National Council for the Social Studies indicates a growing number of presentations on the broad topic of human rights education.

In 1997, a survey was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc for Human Rights USA to assess the human rights knowledge and understandings of the American public.  The survey results were analyzed separately for adults and youth (15-18 years of age).  The results show that while the sample population may have had opinions about human rights issues, only 8% of adults and 4% of youth had any notion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  When informed of its existence, they overwhelmingly supported it and wanted more information (Peter Hart, 1997).

This seeming juxtaposition of concern for teachers and legislatures matched with pervasive ignorance on the part of the general public leads to a call for more data.  What does not exist is a formal comprehensive study of what is happening across the nation in this area.  Ed O’Brien, Executive Director of Street Law, recently stated:

I believe there is little HRE in U.S. schools because of how difficult it is to change curriculum in the U.S., which only takes place on the state and local school board and individual school levels. More importantly, the concept of human rights is not yet part of the culture as it relates to issues inside the U.S.‑‑human rights violations are thought of as something occurring in other countries not inside the U.S. (O’Brien, 2000).

Perspective

Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan in his message for Human Rights Day 2000 concluded that:

We still have a long way to go.  Only a few countries have developed effective national strategies for human rights education.  There is a big gap between the promises made under the Decade and the resources actually committed. ... Why is human rights education so important?  Because, as it says in the constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), ‘since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.’  The more people know their own rights, and the more they respect those of others, the better the chance that they will live together in peace.  Only when people are educated about human rights can we hope to prevent human rights violations, and thus prevent conflict, as well.”

                This connection between human rights education and peace education can be linked directly to the first sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (1948, p.1).  Reardon (1997), sees human rights education as a necessary and useful complement to peace education that is “essential to the development of peacemaking capacities and should be integrated into all forms of peace education. It is through human rights education that learners are provided with the knowledge and opportunities for specific corrective action that can fulfill the prescriptive requirements of education for peace” (p.22).  Human rights concepts and principles have a role not only in conflict resolution but of all aspects and phases of a peace making process.  Human rights education teaches the “concepts of dignity and justice that identify and acknowledge social wrongs and cultural faults, as the guidelines through which societies can conceptualize and pursue cultural change, and as the impetus to governmental action to defend the dignity of citizens” (p. 29).

Models for Describing Human Rights Education

            In spite of what the National Survey of Human Rights Education might imply, human rights education is taking place in classrooms across the country.  The form that this education takes varies from teacher to teacher and school to school.  From the isolated bulletin board to the thematic curriculum, human rights issues and concepts are being presented and discussed by thousands of students each school year. A taxonomy or spectrum of these approaches is useful in categorizing human rights education in its multiple forms.  

                According to Tibbetts (1997), human rights education seeks to impact learners in three areas:

The knowledge level of impact subsumes what would be considered historical events that might be considered to have a human rights connection (the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, slavery, Irish Famine) . The inclusion of values, beliefs, and attitudes is not new in American education.  The teaching of democratic citizenship involves instilling a commitment to a system of government, valuing the rule of law and showing tolerance towards other people's opinions. The related attitudes conveyed by human rights education are that human rights are important, that human dignity is inherent in all people, that rights should be respected, that cooperation is better than conflict, that we are responsible for our actions, and that we can improve the world if we try. The skills supporting a democratic and human rights culture include listening to others, making moral analysis, cooperating, problem solving, and inclusive forms of decision-making. The skills for taking action include needs analysis, research and developing action plans. These are supported in turn by an attitude of taking responsibility for promoting democratic practices and protecting human rights.

          Effective democratic citizenship and human rights education go beyond the concepts to emphasize the use of participatory methodologies in order to enhance student engagement and to address skills and attitudes about democracy and human rights. Constructivist approaches using scaffolding and other techniques expand students’ thinking through exploration, reflection, debate, discussion, cooperative group work, projects and creative self expression. (Tibbetts, 1997).

                In her more recent work, Tibbetts has proposed three operating models for classifying human rights education.  These are the Values and Awareness Model, The Accountability Model, and the Transformational Model.  She see these models as fitting into an adapted version of the "learning pyramid." At the large base, we would find the "values and awareness models," in the middle, the "accountability model," and at the narrow top, the "transformational model." (Tibbetts , 2002).

In the "values and awareness model," the main focus of human rights education is to transmit basic knowledge of human rights issues and to foster its integration into public values. Public education awareness campaigns and school‑based curriculum typically fall within this realm. It is not unusual for school curricula that include human rights to link up with fundamental democratic values and practice.

Under the "accountability model," participants are already expected to be directly or indirectly associated with the guarantee of human rights through their professional roles. In this group, HRE focuses on the ways in which professional responsibilities involve either directly monitoring human rights violations and advocating with the necessary authorities or taking special care to protect the rights of people (especially vulnerable populations) for whom they have some responsibility.

In the "transformational model," HRE programming is geared towards empowering the individual to both recognize human rights abuses and to commit to their prevention. In some cases, whole communities ‑‑ not just the individual ‑‑ are treated as the target audience. This model involves techniques (based partly on developmental psychology) that involve self‑reflection and support within the community. A formal focus on human rights is only one component of this model, however. The complete program may also include leadership development, conflict resolution training, vocational training, work and informal fellowship. (Tibbetts, 2002)

                Another way of approaching the variability of human rights education in the classroom would be to look at the work done in the field of multicultural education and the integration of ethnic content into the curriculum.  There are many similarities between the two fields and the work of Banks and others can help inform and explicate what is happening in human rights education.

                James Banks, a nationally renowned multicultural educator describes the manner in which ethnic content is being integrated into the K-12 curriculum.  He has identified four levels which progress from the simple to the complex and  from  knowledge to action. These levels are:

1) Contributions Approach to integrating ethnic content into the curriculum is the most frequently used and lowest level of spectrum.  It is characterized by the addition of selected heroes or events based around holidays or events. Though it is the easiest to begin, it is seen as possibly trivializing cultures, making them seem strange or exotic, and thus reinforcing stereotypes.

2) Ethnic Additive Approach integrates ethnic content to the already existing curriculum through the addition of content, concepts, themes, and perspectives.  It does not call for any changes to the basic structure, purposes, and characteristics of the particular course of study and may be accomplished by addition of a book, a unit, or a course to the curriculum.

3) Transformation Approach changes the basic assumptions and structure of the curriculum to enable students to view concepts, issues, events, and themes from the perspective of diverse ethnic and cultural groups.  This approach includes not just the addition, but the infusion, of differing perspectives. 

4) Decision-making and Social Action Approach forces students to make decisions on important social issues and take actions to help solve them. In doing so, it expands on the transformational approach by adding the behavioral component.

In the reality of most classrooms and schools,  the four approaches are mixed and blended.  One approach, such as Contributions can provide the impetus to deeper discussion that yields a transformative or social action result.  This blending may happen over time, as well, as students become more developmentally capable of higher levels of integration. (Banks,  2001). It is possible to see that these approaches overlap with those proposed by Tibbetts.

                Another field that has a similar theoretical construct is that of curriculum integration.  Researchers such as Heidi Hayes Jacobs have been exploring and explaining what happens when more than one discipline is taught in a coordinated, consistent manner.  She describes the variety of approaches to curriculum integration as being design options:

1) Discipline-based content design which includes no integration beyond the stratified subjects

2) Parallel discipline designs where subjects maintain their individuality but schedule corresponding lessons where appropriate

3) Discipline units or courses where certain related disciplines are brought together in a formal unit or project

4) Interdisciplinary units/courses brings together the full range of disciplines within the curriculum toward a single objective

5) Integrated day model is a full-day approach based on themes in the students’ world.

6) Complete program is most extreme and involves students living together and creating the school curriculum out of their own lives. (Jacobs, 1989).

                Human rights education as practiced in individual classrooms and schools falls somewhere within an amalgam of these approaches. The controversial nature of many topics within HRE are presented in schools in a wide range of guises similar to those outlined by James Banks.  The topics that fall within HRE itself are broad and multi-disciplinary in nature, lending themselves to approaches such as Jacobs recommends.  Encompassing all of this is the Tibbetts model.  Her “Values and Awareness” model subsumes Banks’ Contributions and Ethnic Additive Approaches, as well as Jacobs first four levels.  The “Accountability” model is unique to Tibbetts and HRE.

                The most essential component of HRE is the perspective of action or Tibbetts’ Transformational Model. This is also seen in Banks’ Tranformational and Social Action approaches and Jacobs levels 5 and 6.  The learning which is desired through human rights education must result in the perception of the relevance of human rights concepts and principles in the struggle for a more humane and just society and in the inspiration to undertake some form of action to promote and enhance these rights. This involves the process of thinking through to find solutions to the problems which formed the starting point of the learning process, and the development of strategies and tactics to bring about change. It also entails acquiring information about other groups or individuals who may be already engaged in action regarding the issue under discussion, leading to exchange and collaboration on specific issues . Similar to Banks’ social action approach to multicultural education, HRE must have a culminating component of action to be complete. This component can be present in many of the more involved approaches to HRE.  Within a well constructed unit or course or curriculum, there is a place for action.

                The congruence of these models allows for the discussion of human rights education from a variety of levels. The results of the National Survey of Human Rights Education will be analyzed using a combination of these categories.

Methodology

                How has human rights education been integrated into the K-12 curriculum in the United States?  There are several ways of approaching this question. One would be to conduct a survey of teachers across the country, asking them to disclose what they actually are teaching in this area.  Another option is to look at state-level mandates for instruction.  Since the late 1980s, the United States has undergone a major change in the development of curricular policy.  With the advent of Goals 2000 and the standards movement, 49 of 50 states have developed written standards for their graduates.  A review of these documents would indicate if human rights education was considered a priority by the educational power brokers.  

                A survey was developed through consultation with human rights educators across the nation modeled after the “National Survey of Economic Education” completed by the National Council on Economic Education, May 1999. The survey was conducted to determine the degree to which HRE has been integrated into statewide mandates, standards, and/or frameworks for K-12 instruction.  Starting in April, 2000, surveys were mailed to a select sample of 120 knowledgeable persons (state education curriculum specialists and officers of state councils for the social studies), asking them to respond to questions about the level of inclusion of human rights topics within their state policies. Multiple responses from a single state (when available) provided a means to validate responses. Follow-up contacts with the original sample and additional participants were made over the ensuing months to ensure that responses were received from every state.  This analysis of the data is based on surveys returned from all 50 states.


                Within the survey, human rights education was defined as all learning that develops the knowledge, skills, and values of human rights (including civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights).  The specific label HRE may not be used, but the content should still be present. This was intended to differentiate between historical events that might be considered to have a human rights connection (the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, slavery, Irish Famine) and the behaviors and dispositions that support human rights.  Including the former without the latter is not human rights education. As  Shiman (1988) asserts:

Human rights is not a subject that can be studied at a distance.  Students should not just learn about the Universal Declaration, about apartheid, or about homelessness without also being challenged to think about what it all means for them personally.  As human rights educators, we ask our students and ourselves, "How does all this relate to the way we live our lives?"  The answer we receive tells us much about both how, and how effectively, we teach this subject.

 Survey questions included:

Results of survey:

                1. In response to the questions about mandates and/or standards, forty percent (20) of the states indicate that human rights education is within the state mandated curriculum. The specific terminology of where this mandates lies varies greatly. Seventeen of these states (AZ, CA, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OH, SD, TX, VT) indicate that human rights education is part of their state standards (called different things in several states); CT, IN, MA, NJ, and NY list legislative mandates or resolutions.  Figure 2 identifies those states with HRE within the standards (indicated in green).  Figure 3 highlights those states with legislative mandates (in blue).

                Those states with the most comprehensive human rights education within state curricula include Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont.  Examples from these six states follow. Details on all 20 states are included in Appendix 1.

Figure 2. States with Human Rights Education within the Learning Standards

                Georgia’s Quality Core Curriculum Standards (1999) include statements such as:

                Kansas (1999) calls on students in 11th grade World History to “analyze the role of ideology, nationalism, religion, and the struggle for human rights in regional conflicts.” 

                Maryland in its School Performance Assessment Program-Learner Outcomes (2000) for grade 8 calls for students to:

demonstrate attainment of understandings and attitudes needed to secure a reasoned commitment to human dignity, justice and democratic processes; analyze beliefs and values associated with a commitment to the rule of law; using a variety of cultural and ethnic contexts, analyze situations illustrating conflicts between conscience and respect for authority; using a variety of cultural and ethnic contexts, analyze situations in which individuals; demonstrate respect and support for the rights and dignity of all peoples; and analyze situations from a variety of historical contexts in which respect for majority rule and rights of the individual is demonstrated.

                New Mexico (2000) has a Content Standard that states:

 “Students will know and understand the role of global connections and interdependence between and among individuals, groups, societies, and nations.” To measure attainment of that standard, benchmarks are set for the various grade levels.          

(K-4) D. Explore issues of human rights.
1. Identify examples of discrimination in literature.
2. Identify and list basic human rights.

(5-8) D. Examine the complexity of human rights issues.
1. Research issues and present recommendations for solving problems related to the quality of human life in different parts of the world.
2. Hypothesize on causes and consequences of persistent contemporary issues and prepare possible solutions.

(9-12) D. Evaluate the concerns, standards, issues, and conflicts related to universal human rights and their impact on public policy.
1. Analyze how and why the Nazi regime perpetrated a "war against the Jews" and describe the devastation suffered by Jews and other groups in the Nazi Holocaust.
2. Explore and trace the use of ethnic cleansing throughout history.

                Ohio’s state standards (1999) revolve around several themes.  The “citizenship rights and responsibilities” and “democratic processes” themes include mentions of human rights related concepts. The 7th grade mentions the concepts of  individual rights and freedoms as well as tolerance and integrity. The 10th grade discusses the Holocaust plus calls on students to “place the development of individual rights in the US during the twentieth century in the context of international human rights”(p. 89).

                Vermont (1999) contains direct mention of HRE in standard 6.12 which calls upon students to “identify and evaluate the concept of human rights in various times in their local community, in Vermont, in the United States, and in various locations world wide.”

               

                2. As shown in Figure 3, five states (CT, IN, MA, NJ, NY) have legislative resolutions to include aspects of human rights within the education law of the state.  In several instances, these mandates are in a very focused area that falls solely within the definition of historical human rights education such as the CT legislation to provide guidance in teaching about the Holocaust and Irish famine or IN resolutions for multicultural (1991) and Holocaust (1995) education.  On the other hand, other state legislatures have broadened the scope of the mandate to include both historical and behavioral issues. The NY legislation mandates instruction in “human rights issues, with particular attention to the study of the inhumanity of genocide, slavery, the Holocaust, and the mass starvation in Ireland from 1845 to 1850...” The NJ legislation indicates that instruction on the Holocaust and genocides shall take place throughout the elementary and secondary curriculum.  This instruction “shall enable pupils to identify and analyze applicable theories concerning human nature and behavior; to understand that genocide is a consequence of prejudice and discrimination; and to understand that issues of moral dilemma and conscience have a profound impact on life.”  The MA legislature in 1998 directed its Department of Education to formulate guidelines for the teaching of genocide and human rights issues, which resulted in the June, 1999 publication of the Massachusetts Guide to Choosing and Using Curricular Materials on Genocide and Human Rights Issues.

Figure 3. States with Legislative Mandates for HRE

                3. With reference to Tibbetts’ models of human rights education, all of the states mentioned in 1) and 2) fall in the categories of Values and Awareness or Knowledge, transmitting basic knowledge.  In only two cases MD and NM did the survey reveal other models.  In MD, students are required to “demonstrate attainment of understandings and attitudes” as well as “demonstrate respect and support for the rights and dignity of all peoples.” These fall in Tibbetts’ category of Values, Beliefs, Attitudes.  NM is the only state found to mandate anything that could be construed to be Transformational or based on Action.  Students are asked to “hypothesize on causes and consequences of persistent contemporary issues and prepare possible solutions.”  This standard does not require action be taken, but implies that the students understand how and when action could be taken.  It is a first step.

                4. Of the states with standards and/or mandates not all require that they be implemented in the schools. Nine states consider their mandate to be only a guideline or suggestion, leaving it up to the individual districts to choose whether to implement. Those who replied that the human rights mandate was required are GA, KY, LA, MA, MD, MN, NJ, NY, OH, SD, and TX.

            5. The vast majority of states (90%) consider their mandate to extend to all grade levels. Only SD and NY did not.  In NY, the legislative mandate is tied to an age (8+) rather than grade level. In SD, the mandate is only for high school. In all cases, the  states see this mandate being met through the social studies curriculum, with a few states also indicating English language arts and/or other disciplines.

           6. The question regarding the developmental nature of the HRE was problematic for many respondents.  Either they did not know or left it blank.  Those who did respond, found the standards/mandates to be developmental in nature. Students begin with concepts of self and community (referred to in several instances as "core democratic values") and grow into more intense human rights topics.

            7. When asked to specify curriculum topics within HRE, the most frequently cited were the Holocaust, Irish Famine, genocide, slavery, and current issues. In many states, however, the issues are not specifically delineated.

            8. Assessments drive curriculum in most states. Half of the states indicated that the human rights mandate is reflected in their statewide assessment structure. Several others indicated that no such test exists, but is "under construction" and the resulting product will include human rights.

                9. Of the 30 states indicating that they have no human rights mandate (see Appendix II), eighteen (60%) also indicate that there is no pattern of integration of human rights education in their schools. Twelve (40%) of these non‑mandate states, however, indicate integration into the K‑12 curriculum through the social studies. Several of the states in the non-mandate category refer to the issue of community control in being unable to clearly define if any policy is in place across all schools in the state.           

Conclusions

                If one believes that there is a role for human rights education within the K‑12 school curriculum, then it is both useful and relevant to understand to what extent the states are already complying. Through survey, it is possible to determine that while progress has been made, there is still a long road ahead. Issues arise as to conflicting definitions and vocabulary, mandates, and assessment. Most importantly, what is actually happening in the classrooms of the United States? No legislature in the world can assure student learning without the active involvement of the classroom teacher.            

When activists, the media, politicians, teachers, students and others in everyday life begin to refer to such problems in the U.S. as racism, women's issues, children's rights, poverty, police brutality, international trade, unemployment, the death penalty and gun control as human rights issues, we will see a shift in perspective. We must all learn that human rights abuses are not just something that occur in far away places‑they are happening right here at home‑they are happening in our own backyard. At different stages of our lives, we are all victims and perpetrators of human rights abuse.

To bring about this change in U.S. culture, those promoting HRE must focus on changing the language so that people begin to use the words "human rights" in their everyday lives. In this way, the language of human rights will be incorporated into our culture and thoughts. Only then will problems like education and health care begin to be framed as human rights issues.  Only then will we be able to change what is principally "a legal and constitutional law culture" to a system of laws and a constitution based on human rights. Only then will people in the U.S.A. see the need for HRE. (O’Brien, 2000)

Only then will Human Rights Education attain its rightful place within the K-12 curriculum. Only then will we begin to keep the promises made under the Decade of Human Rights Education. 

References

                Annan, K. (2000, November 29). Message for Human Rights Day 2000: Secretary-General says big gap exists between promises on human rights education and resources made available. Press Release: United Nations. SG/SM./7648 OBV/185.

                Arizona Department of Education. (2000). Arizona academic standards. Available:

                Banks, J. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

                California Sate Board of Education. (2000). K‑12 Academic Content Standards for California Public Schools. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/board.

                Clow, J. E. (1999). National survey of economic education. New York: National Council on Economic Education.

                Elbers, F. (2000, August 5). [hr-education] Draft summary main achievements and obstacles in first half of the decade [online]. Available e-mail: hr-education@hrea.org.

                Florida Department of Education. (1996). Sunshine state standards. Available: http://www.firn.edu/doe/cgi‑bin/doehome/menu.pl

                Flowers, N. (ed). (1998). Human rights here and now: Celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Minneapolis: Human Rights Educators Network.

                Flowers, N. (ed). (2000). The human rights education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Available: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/hrhandbook/toc.html

                Flowers, N. and Rudelius‑Palmer, K. (2000, July 25).An introduction to human rights education. Human Rights Resource Center [online]. Available: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-2/HRE-intro.htm

                Georgia Department of Education. (1999). Georgia quality core curriculum standards. Available:

                Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

                Kansas State Board of Education (1999). Curricular standards for civics-government, economics, geography, and history. Available: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us.

                Louisiana Department of Education. (2000). Louisiana content standards. Available: http://www.lcet.doe.state.la.us/conn/

                Maryland Department of Education. (2000). Maryland school performance assessment program: Learner Outcomes. Available: http://www.mdk12.org.

                Massachusetts Department of Education. (1999). Massachusetts guide to choosing and using curricular materials on genocide and human rights issues. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.

                Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning. (2000). Minnesota graduation standards. Available: http://cfl.state.mn.us/GRAD/

                New Jersey State Legislature. (1994). State Education Law 18A:35‑28.  Instruction on Holocaust, genocides required in elementary, secondary school curriculum.  

                New Mexico Department of Education. (2000). Standards and benchmarks. Available: http://www.sde.state.nm.us.

                New York State Education Department. Education Law, subdivision 1 and 3 of section 801 as amended by chapter 390 of the laws of 1994 and 1995.

                New York State Education Department. (2000). New York learning standards. Available:

                O’Brien, E., Greene, E., and McQuoid-Mason, D. (1996). Human rights for all. NY: West Publishing.

                O’Brien, E. (2000, October 2). [hr-education]. HRE in the United States [online]. Available e-mail: hr-education@hrea.org.

                Ohio Department of Education. (1999). Social studies: Ohio’s model competency-based program. Columbus, Ohio: State Board of Education.

                Peter Hart Research Associates, Inc. (1997). Hart survey on attitudes and knowledge of human rights – Adult. Available: http://www.hrusa.org/features.shtm

                Peter Hart Research Associates, Inc. (1997). Hart survey on attitudes and knowledge of human rights – Youth. Available: http://www.hrusa.org/features.shtm

                Plan of Action United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, GA 49/184 of 23 Dec. 1994.

                Reardon, B.A. (1997). Human rights as education for peace. In G. J. Andreaopolous & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty‑first century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

                Shiman, D. et al. (1988). Teaching about human rights: Issues of justice in a global age. Denver: Center for Teaching International Relations.

                Tibbetts, F. (1997). The annotated primer for selecting democratic and human rights education teaching materials. Budapest: Open Society Institute. Available: http://www.hrea.org/pubs/Primer/introduction.html

                Tibbetts, F. (2002). Emerging models for human rights education. Issues of Democracy: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State. Volume 7, Number 1, March 2002. Available:

                United Nations General Assembly. (2000). Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the mid-term global evaluation of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives of the United nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004). A/55/360.

                United Nations General Assembly. (6 March 1995). United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education. A/RES/49/184.

                United Nations General Assembly.  (12 December 1996). Human rights questions: Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms A/51/506/Add.1                                            

                Universal Declaration of Human Rights. U.N.G.A. Res. 217A (III), 3(1) UN GAOR Res. 71, UN Doc. A/810 (1948).

                Vermont Department of Education. (1999). Vermont’s framework of standards and learning opportunities. History and social sciences standards. Available: http://www.state.vt.us/educ

     


Appendix I.  State responses that indicate the inclusion of human rights education.

AZ         

no direct mention evident in state standards, some historical mention of Holocaust

PO 7. the legacy of genocide from totalitarian regimes, including Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot

CA         

no direct mention, but covers human rights violations in historical context: Armenia, Holocaust, etc

CT         

legislative mandate to teach about Holocaust and Irish Famine

FL          

not explicitly  in the “Sunshine State Standards”

GA         

Quality Core Curriculum Standards

Grade 9‑12  :  Social Studies

Course 15:  Current Issues

Topic: World Conflict

Standard: Discusses human rights issues in various countries in the world.

Course 24:  U. S. and World Affairs

Topic: Human Rights Standard: Analyzes the difficulty of developing and enforcing international standards of human rights.

Course 23:  World History

Topic: Human Rights

Standard: Analyzes the phenomenon of genocide in the 20th century

‑Armenian

‑Nazi holocaust, and

‑ethnic cleansing (Balkan, African, and Asian).

IN           

Holocaust and Multicultural Ed only

KS         

mention of Holocaust and “core civic values”, “rights, privileges, responsibilities” but includes specific mention within 11th grade World History benchmark and indicators: analyze the role of ideology, nationalism, religion, and the struggle for human rights in regional conflicts, including mention of UDHR

KY         

reference to Human Dignity in standards at middle and high school level, not direct HRE

LA         

social studies standard C‑1D‑H1 

evaluating and defending positions on issues regarding the personal, political, and economic rights of citizens

MD        

School Performance Assessment Program–Learner Outcomes grade 8:

#7 Understandings and Attitudes

Students will:

MA        

legislation: mandating “recommendations on curricular materials on genocide and human rights issues”. Topics include: slave trade, Irish hunger, Armenian genocide, holocaust, Mussolini fascist regime and other “recognized human rights violations and genocides.”

MN        

term not used. Emphasis on civic responsibility, improving community, understanding/resolving conflict, understanding diversity (pre service “human relations”component)

MT         

no direct mention in standards

NJ          

Holocaust mandate from legislature, human rights in NJ state social studies Core Curriculum Content Standards

                (EXCERPTED FROM STANDARD 6.3)

                Cumulative Progress Indicators,

                by the end of Grade 4, students:

                4. Explain issues, standards, and conflicts related to universal human rights.

Building upon knowledge and skills gained in the preceding grades,

                by the end of Grade 8, students:

                8. Understand issues, standards, and conflicts related to universal human rights.  

Building upon knowledge and skills gained in the preceding grades, by the end of Grade 12, students:

                14. Analyze and formulate policy statements demonstrating an understanding of issues, standards, and conflicts related to universal human rights.        

                (EXCERPTED FROM STANDARD 6.4)

                Cumulative Progress Indicators.

                By the end of Grade 4, students:

                4. Identify events when people have engaged in cruel and inhumane behavior.       

Building upon knowledge and skills gained in the preceding grades,

                by the end of Grade 8, students:

8. Understand how historical and contemporary ideas, perceptions, and occurrences have led to prejudice, discrimination, expulsion, genocide, slavery, and the Holocaust.    

Building upon knowledge and skills gained in the preceding grades, by the end of Grade 12, students:

13. Evaluate actions an individual, group, or institution might take to counteract incidents of prejudice, discrimination, expulsion, genocide, slavery, and the Holocaust.    

NM        

Content Standard 14: Students will know and understand the role of global connections and interdependence between and among individuals, groups, societies, and nations.

Benchmarks:        

(K-4) D. Explore issues of human rights.               
1. Identify examples of discrimination in literature.
2. Identify and list basic human rights.                      

(5-8) D. Examine the complexity of human rights issues.
1. Research issues and present recommendations for solving problems related to the quality of human life in different parts of the world.
2. Hypothesize on causes and consequences of persistent contemporary issues and prepare possible solutions.

(9-12) D. Evaluate the concerns, standards, issues, and conflicts related to universal human rights and their impact on public policy.
1. Analyze how and why the Nazi regime perpetrated a "war against the Jews" and describe the devastation suffered by Jews and other groups in the Nazi Holocaust.
2. Explore and trace the use of ethnic cleansing throughout history

NY         

Legislative mandate, instruction in”human rights issues, with particular attention to the study of the inhumanity of genocide, slavery, the Holocaust, and the mass starvation in Ireland from 1845 to 1850...” 

                New York State Learning Standards for:

                US History 1.3

understand the interrelationships between world events and developments in New York State and the United States (e.g., causes for immigration, economic opportunities, human rights abuses, and tyranny versus freedom)

                Civics, Citizenship, and Government 5.2

analyze the disparities between civic values expressed in the United States Constitution and the United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the realities as evidenced in the political, social, and economic life in the United States and throughout the world

OH         

thematic as “citizenship rights and responsibilities” and “democratic processes”

7th grade mention of individual rights and freedoms

tolerance/integrity

10th grade Holocaust plus “place the development of individual rights in the US during the twentieth century in the context of international human rights

SD         

no direct mention, discusses “rights and responsibilities of being a citizen”

TX         

no direct mention in standards or grid

VT         

direct mention of human rights in standards 6.12 Students identify and evaluate the concept of human rights in various times in their local community, in Vermont, in the United States, and in various locations world wide. This is evident when students:

PreK‑4  Identify and compare how various communities (e.g. classroom, school) have defined human rights.

5‑8  Evaluate the impact of social choices (e.g. efforts to end hunger, finance health care, defend homelands) on human rights; and explain the importance to the individual and to society of personal rights (e.g. freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of movement and residence).

9‑12  Identify and evaluate how individual and group action promote or deny human rights; and Compare and contrast various statements about human rights (e.g. U.S. Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and examine their current impact.

Appendix II.  State responses that indicate no inclusion of human rights education


AL

AK

AR

CO

DE

HI

ID

IL

IA

ME

MI

MS

MO

NB

NE

NH

NC

ND

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

TN

UT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY