I take issue with the idea that Western Civ is not taught. I teach history and the vast majority of the standards are European. Specifically, I spend 1 academic quarter teaching: Sui, Tang, Song Dynasties; Mali and East-African City States; Middle East from founding of Islam through the end of the Golden Age; and Maya, Aztec and Inca. I then spend three academic quarters teaching Europe from the end of Rome to the end of Napoleon.

That’s a lot of huge, complex, diverse civilizations and about 1000 years in 3 months of study; and one complex civilization (as you define it) over about the same amount of time in 10 months of study.

But maybe it’s just my district and those who follow either Common Core, NCSS and states that modeled standards after Mass. State Standards (most East-coast States).

I was wondering about your methodology for analyzing the course offerings in secondary and postsecondary ed. For secondary, were you working with pre-CC state standards, CC standards, or NCSS Standards? For secondary, did you do a general survey of course offerings that you designed yourself; or were you working from scholarly research (like from an education clearinghouse, collegiate accreditation orgs, etc.)?

Anecdotally, as a history minor, I found there to be more, and more specific, courses about Western history than about non-Western history. It was the same in my anthro major, and seemed to be true in philosophy, literature and religion as well. But of course I can’t generalize university education solely by my own experience.

I’d be interested to know the research about postsecondary, because I’m not familiar with it. But the American secondary social studies courses are definitely predominantly European/Western (as you term).

Thanks!