Dec 1, 2012
ELW

Social Studies Hearing Request of Dr. Ryan MacPherson

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

30 November 2012
Kerstin Forsythe Hahn
Department of Education
1500 Highway 36 West
Roseville, MN 55113
651-582-8583
Kerstin.forsythe@state.mn.us

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A HEARING CONCERNING THE
PROPOSED MINNESOTA K-12 ACADEMIC STANDARDS IN SOCIAL STUDIES

Dear Ms. Hahn:

I respectfully request a hearing concerning the proposed Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Social Studies 2011 (Rule-Making Draft, February 17, 2012). As requested in the notice of hearing, my name and address are provided above. I oppose the entire set of rules as they are presently drafted, with most of my concerns relating to the Subpart 1: Citizenship and
Government and Subpart 4: History; I desire that the 2004 rules be retained unless and until the 2011 proposal is amended.

As a college professor who instructs students pursuing Minnesota licensure for elementary and secondary education, I am concerned that the 2011 proposal will not adequately ensure that K-12 schools meet the stated objectives of preparing the rising generation for citizenship, higher education, and employment. My specialty is American history, including constitutional law. I am alarmed that the 2011 proposal removes references to the natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and that the 2011 proposal also loses the emphasis, present in the 2004 rules, that it is government’s chief purpose to secure these natural rights. The 2004 rules, attentive to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, included these fundamental principles in multiple Benchmarks and Examples.  To consider another example, the 2011 proposal also entirely removes all references to Abraham Lincoln and to his Gettysburg address, topics which appeared in multiple required Benchmarks in the 2004 rules. Not only will high school graduates be under-prepared for American civic life without an understanding of these important aspects of our national heritage, but they also will be ill equipped for college coursework.

My concerns about the 2011 proposal are not limited to American history and government. The 2011 proposal surprisingly relegates the Renaissance to a merely optional Example, whereas in 2004 the Renaissance appeared in multiple mandatory Standards and Benchmarks; the 2004 rules in fact classified several Standards under the title “Renaissance and Reformation,” whereas the 2011 proposal marginalizes both of these important movements of world history and requires, obliquely, that students “understand that hemispheric networks intensified as a result of innovations … [during the years] 600-1450,” a Standard for which not a single Benchmark specifically requires any knowledge whatsoever of the Renaissance. Strangely, the 2011 proposal adds as Examples a number of relatively obscure historical persons and events, while jettisoning all references, present in the 2004 Examples, to Confucius, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, Christopher Columbus,
Leondardo da Vinci, Martin Luther, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, William Penn, Thomas Paine Sacagawea, Chief Joseph, Abraham Lincoln, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Theodore Roosevelt, Adolph Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Mao Zedong, Margaret Thatcher, and Osama bin Ladin. Cultural literacy requires that a person be familiar with at least most of these individuals, who together represent a diverse spectrum of our international and American heritage. Such cultural literacy is foundational for multiple career paths, as well as for civic participation more broadly, not to mention a wide variety of college majors in the humanities and social sciences.

Out of concern for Minnesota students, and as the parent of four children myself, I would like to provide both oral and written testimony at the hearing. My testimony will not only identify specific problem areas, but also constructively suggest amendments to the 2011 proposal that will correct deficiencies, such as those listed above. As Chair of the History Department at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minnesota—a college with both elementary and secondary education licensure programs for social studies—I believe that my professional expertise can be of service to the Minnesota Department of Education in finalizing academic standards that will serve K-12 students better in the future. In the event that a hearing is granted, please send me instructions for my participation.

Please reply to confirm that this request for a hearing has been received in a timely manner and that it complies with the rules set forth in the notice of hearing. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ryan C. MacPherson, Ph.D.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Comments

  • Dr. MacPherson,

    If I can help I am willing. As teacher-librarian in a public K-12 I have studied the Common Core standards which purport to alter the focus of learning so that the student must be prepared to back up a statement with facts instead of opinion.

    This paradigm shift is puzzling since the environmentalists are in their third decade of promoting public policy that shames mankind, and most emphatically Western civilization, for destroying the planet. The science used by the UN IPCC is shot through with holes; the “climate scientists” have been discredited, and yet many politicians continue to consider carbon fees on producers, transporters and consumers.

    Environmentalists have already succeeded in embedding “Mankind is the Problem” in our K-12 curriculum. In spite of the solid proof that there is no Greenhouse Gas effect we will raise our citizens to feel shamed and guilty for the evils of capitalism and prosperity, encouraging them to develop society based on a godless Utopia with central authority and stiff enforcement.

    If you are interested, I will attempt to connect your above arguments to a government-written description of the Common Core standards, in hopes that someone will see the problems within the most recent social studies standards.

  • http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

    See pages 60-64 and ask how an American student can carry out those objectives if “the 2011 proposal removes references to the natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and that the 2011 proposal also loses the emphasis, present in the 2004 rules, that it is government’s chief purpose to secure these natural rights. The 2004 rules, attentive to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, included these fundamental principles in multiple Benchmarks and Examples. To consider another example, the 2011 proposal also entirely removes all references to Abraham Lincoln and to his Gettysburg address, topics which appeared in multiple required Benchmarks in the 2004 rules.”

  • I apologize in advance for the length of this link, but it describes the heart of the problem.

    Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establishment
    http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/pseudo-critical-thinking-in-the-educational-establishment/504

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.