The Battle for Social Studies

Home

EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN 55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail

Printer Version
January 25, 2004

The Battle for Social Studies
By Michael J. Chapman
Edwatch, Board of Directors; American Heritage Research, Founder

Summary brief: Why Minnesota needs a simple
up or down vote for the new standards in social studies.

Lincoln is attributed as having said: “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation, will become the philosophy of government in the next.” For that reason, radicals of every stripe wish to fill curriculum with their own philosophical underpinnings. Social Studies, encompassing: economics, geography, civics, government, and history, is the most contentious battleground for shaping a biased curriculum.

Edwatch, and American Heritage Research, was hopeful that the new standards would be written without the political bias and subjective benchmarks that plagued the Profile of Learning (POL). We were glad that the POL repeal bill included parameters for “objective” and “measurable” replacement standards. This went a long way toward bringing back objective knowledge-based standards. We are pleased that, according to the new standards, Minnesota students will once again be required to learn America’s foundation principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence - including national sovereignty, natural law, self-evident truths, unalienable rights, and the true purpose and limits of government. They will also learn about America’s “free market system of economics.”

Unfortunately, during the public hearings, pressure was exerted on the commissioner and committees to move back toward process learning and political bias. As a result of certain compromises, the completed standards were watered down enough that Edwatch’s constituent support among parents, teachers, and students, hangs by a narrow thread. Instead of the best possible standards, we are starting the legislative session with a bottom-line compromise.

However, due to the important gains made, we do support the social studies standards - as written, as long as there is no possibility of further damage. That means there must be an up or down vote on the standards as the Commissioner proposed them. If the legislature begins modifying the standards, the gains so painfully won by the Commissioner will be at risk, and we will be forced to bring our own list of grievances to bear. We have little confidence that the result would be supportable as a substantial improvement over the Profile of Learning. We are confident, however, that with the support of the majority in the House, and with the Governor’s support, an up or down vote in both the House and Senate will prove successful.

For your information and consideration, the following is a PARTIAL list of items we would seek to fix if the standards are opened for amendment:

1. We would push to reinsert good language removed from the first draft, including: “Students will describe the difference between unalienable rights (as described in the US Declaration of Independence), versus limited rights (as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).”

2. We would seek to change politically-biased language in many areas. For example, the benchmark: “Students will explain...the FAILURE of post-war internationalism, and the rise of US ISOLATIONISM” (p.23), should read: “...REJECTION of post war internationalism, and the successful protection of US INDEPENDENCE.” Likewise, the benchmark: “Students will contrast the internationalist foreign policy of FDR with the more ISOLATIONIST sentiment in Congress,” (p.35) should read, “...with the more independence-minded Congress.”

3. The geography standards are filled with sociology, anthropology, economics, political science and very little physical geography. For example, “Students will understand...how sovereignty is IMPACTED by international agreements. [and] provide examples of the impact of political boundaries on human behavior and economic activities.” (p. 53) We would seek to return to physical geography knowledge. There are also areas of radical environmentalism. We would, at a minimum, add sections on how humans have “improved” land, rather than focus on negative aspects of human interventions.

Biased language in the Geography standards include: “SPATIAL ORGANIZATION,” a vague term left over from the Profile that referred to “the organization of land” and steered students to accept government regional land-planning goals. Some of the current benchmarks are not much different. For example: Students will analyze “variations in economic activity and LAND USE in Minnesota” and the “potential for CHANGE in various REGIONS;” [and] “regional patterns of economic activity,” [and] “patterns of consumption and production” between nations. (p. 55) This language is biased against political boundaries and national sovereignty, and toward regional planning.

4. In Economics, we would seek to expand the focus on the free-market system, and remove the code-language of socialism, such as: “Scarcity” and balancing “needs and wants.” For example: “Students will understand the implications of the economic problem of SCARCITY.” Benchmark: “Students will indicate how LIMITED productive RESOURCES and UNLIMITED human WANTS cause individuals, governments and nations to choose some things and give up others.” p. 56 This benchmark significantly short-changes the fundamental free enterprise concept of CREATING RESOURCES through innovation, efficiency and invention.

We would also seek to eliminate reference to “interdependence” between government, businesses, and families, since it supports school-to-work principles. For example: “Students will identify the role and INTERDEPENDENCE of households, firms [businesses], and the government.” (p.56).

5. The repeal law required these standards to be objective and measurable, but there is much that must be subjectively measured. For example: “Students will exhibit the behavior of good citizens... including...cooperation, sharing common resources and good manners.” (p.1) These may be nice classroom rules, but how is the state to objectively measure the “sharing of common resources and good manners”? Another example: “Students will DEMONSTRATE knowledge of personal character traits that facilitate thoughtful and effective participation in civic life...” p.7. “Effective participation” is undefined, and so the door is open for profile-like leftist activism.

6. We would seek to undo several of the compromises the Commissioner made after criticisms from the pro-Profile people. Among these is language that opens the door to subjective performance assessments over objective knowledge-based testing. For example, the first draft standards used the fact-based verbs that students must “know and understand”. Following the criticisms, the standards were changed to read students “must demonstrate..., etc.” The commissioner explains: “The committee also made significant changes to the expectations in the standards and benchmarks, adding higher order thinking skills such as ‘analyze, explain, examine, evaluate, and compare and contrast.” (see Commissioner’s Summary, item #4 posted at MDE website.) Such verbs were used throughout the Profile of Learning.

These items represent a small portion of the changes we would seek if the social studies standards were going to be modified. However, the gains made in the current proposal are important enough to support the standards - if further modifications are avoided. Therefore, we urge you to solicit the governor to support the social studies standards as they are proposed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Michael J. Chapman
Edwatch - www.EdWatch.org / www.EdAction.org
American Heritage Research - www.AmericanHeritageResearch.com