Social Studies Academic Standards
Social Studies Academic Standards
View
Academic Standards and give comments online
Historians
aren't sole keepers of nation's past
By Dottie
Anderson, Buffalo, MN
Published in Monticello Times
December 18, 2003
I attended 10 of the 14 town meetings held to solicit citizen input on the new academic standards for social studies. Many of the educators who spoke at these meetings claimed the standards omitted important historical events, concepts and people - particularly those that represented "diverse perspectives" or "unvarnished" views of the past. Thirty two University of Minnesota history professors submitted a detailed commentary full of similar claims to Education Commissioner Yecke.
Among the broader criticisms leveled against the draft standards are:1) the silencing of dissent and conflict in the past and present, 2) the stifling of vital alternative traditions, and 3) the refusal to acknowledge (much less confront) the tragedies and injustices of our own past.
Their specific criticisms fill a thirteen page letter, but a few of the more serious ones deserve mention. They assert, "Nowhere do the standards acknowledge or discuss the complicated, contentious, and enduring legacy of slavery for American race relations past and present." In fact, the first draft of the history standards is packed with "benchmarks" describing what students are expected to know and understand about this subject.
Fifth graders are expected to "know and understand the main ideas of the abolitionist movement, and contributions of key figures, including but not limited to, Frederick Douglas, William Lloyd Garrison, Dred Scott, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman." They should be able to "describe the effects of the Civil War from the perspectives of Union and Confederate soldiers and civilians (including free blacks, women and slaves)." Seventh graders have fifteen benchmarks related to slavery and its abolition, and the social, political and economic causes and consequences of the Civil War. Eighth graders study the impact of segregation and the rise of Jim Crow and the Klan in the post-Reconstruction South.
In high school, students revisit all of these topics in greater depth and detail. They also "examine the changing role of women and blacks during World War II", the major cultural and political changes of the 1950s and 1960s (including key events and people of the civil rights era, e.g., the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.). Contrary to the professors' contention, the new standards do not shy away from controversy or uncomfortable truths about slavery and race relations in America.
The professors worry the new standards will require teachers to stuff the heads of children with mindlessly memorized facts, and that the shear number of facts is somehow "developmentally inappropriate." Some teachers have also said the new standards are too prescriptive and too reliant on so-called low level thinking. The standards use the phrase "know and understand" to cover a wide array of analytical skills - the depth and breadth of understanding is ultimately up to teachers and their students. Sometimes the standards specify particular intellectual skills. For example, the Government and Citizenship benchmarks expect fifth grade students to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information, to evaluate information for accuracy and to separate fact from fiction.
The Profile of Learning was repealed precisely because Minnesotans felt academic content had been displaced by an overly heavy emphasis on the process of knowledge acquisition, i.e., "learning how to think." The draft standards renewed focus on content will actually free teachers to use whatever classroom methods are most effective. Good teachers have always known how to engage students and sharpen their thinking skills by presenting intellectually challenging material. The new standards will not change this.
Beneath their detailed critique, the principal problem the professors seem to have is one of emphasis and interpretation.
Their letter quotes Eric Foner, Columbia University's Marxist labor historian, to highlight the emergence of social history and how it has improved our understanding of the contributions of common people to our national story - something traditional history largely ignored. They correctly note the standards' over reliance on the "usual suspects" among the women, African Americans and others mentioned in the draft. They also stress that children cannot learn to love history when it is presented as something outside themselves - e.g., kings and battles, memorized dates and events or solely the work of great men.
But social history has been dominated by those who emphasize the oppression and subjugation of women, minorities, and workers in America. They do not focus on the gradual, if fitful, extension of rights and freedoms to all citizens, and their ultimate inclusion in the American dream. One begins to question the yardstick used by modern historians when America always comes up short.
Most Americans do not believe their country is fundamentally racist and oppressive. Unlike the history professors they are not embarrassed by "simplistic" notions of patriotism, idealism and limitless progress. They believe in an American "us'" that is unique in the world and has a national mission to fulfill. They are not alienated from each other by class, race and sex, but share a common set values and beliefs about economic, religious and political liberty. Despite their country's failures and imperfections, they are inclined to hold benign and even hopeful views about its role in the world and its future. Millions of immigrants still come to our shores because they believe in the promise of America too.
The good professors are entitled to their views, and to have their views considered along with those of other commentators. They may have devoted their lives to the study and teaching of history, but they are not the sole keepers of our nation's past. The final determination of what our children should know is left up to all of us - working through our elected representatives in the legislature and local school boards.
Dottie
Anderson
Buffalo, MN
EdWatch - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN
55318
651-646-0646 - edwatch@lakes.com
- (c) EdWatch - All rights
reserved.