Please Help Change Minnesota’s Social Studies Standards for the Good

The Minnesota Department of Education is about to complete the “extreme makeover social studies standards edition” process of the well rated 2004 version. Instead of following the law which says to “revise and align” the standards, there has been a top to bottom rewriting with alarming changes in emphasis.  This process began in 2011 and we have endeavored to keep you informed:

• Comments Submitted for Final Draft of Minnesota Social Studies Standards
• Comments on US History Standards from an Attorney and Teacher of the Constitution
• National Association of Scholars Review of MN Social Studies Standards
• John Fonte Review of Minnesota Social Studies Standards
• Southern Poverty Law Center Review
• Please Comment!! Social Studies Standards Continue Disastrous Course in Final Draft!
• Alert! New PC Social Studies Standards are a Disaster!!

The 2011 version, (official rule version available here and standards with benchmarks available here), is about to be put into permanent rule.  The only way to have a hope of any more influence on the final outcome is for at least 25 people to request a hearing by November 30, 2012. The actual hearing itself is scheduled for December 20th but will be cancelled if there are not enough requests.

The full details to request a hearing and or to comment on the standards are contained in the Dual Use notice.  Here are the important highlights:

The Department’s justification for this wholesale rewrite of the standards is in a document called the Statement of Need & Reasonableness (SONAR).  A more detailed analysis of this will be coming soon with our comments.

The reasons to oppose these standards are myriad and may be found at the links above and within the SONAR.  Here are a few important ones:

• There is no discussion of the distinction between unalienable (God-given, inherent) rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the Constitution  and rights that are given and taken away via the whims of man and government as described in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which receives almost as much emphasis in the standards and benchmarks as the Declaration of Independence. Unalienable rights is mentioned once in the examples, but not in the standards or benchmarks that are actually tested.
• Substitution of content knowledge in history and civics for civic activism that is not politically neutral, according to the National Association of Scholars.
• The standards focus inordinately on skills in stead of content knowledge and there are glaring omissions including the Global War on Terror, the genocide of Communism, the benefits of Western Civilization and free market capitalism,and the significant scientific and other innovations from the US.  This was pointed out by John Fonte of the Hudson Institute, who is also a member of the NAEP steering committee in civics and  member of CIVITAS.
• The historical discussions are incredibly biased towards everything the nation has done wrong regarding slavery and the treatment of indigenous peoples, but little to nothing about the things this nation has done well to have made it the freest, most generous, most prosperous, and most liberating country in the history of the world.  In other words there is no discussion of American exceptionalism, patriotism, etc. This was discussed by both Fonte, as well as attorney Holsten.
• Even the very liberal Southern Poverty Law Center gave the new standards an “F” grade because there is not enough content and specificity about the civil rights movement. They also admitted that the 2004 version contained excellent content on this subject and was highly rated by the Fordham Foundation.
• Not previously discussed is the whole issue of linking the new social studies standards to the English standards which are now the Common Core national standards in English. In fact, the full name of the English standards is the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. These English standards have been described by Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a member of the original Common Core validation committee, as culture and content free skills with the so called “college ready” high school standards being at the 6th to 8th grade level. They were so bad that she refused to sign off on them. This speaks poorly to the likely rigor and content of the new social studies standards as already indicated by the reviews mentioned here.

Although Minnesota and the nation are rapidly approaching the point of no return, beyond which it will be very difficult to have our children in public schools learn the principles of freedom and economic success that have made the United States the most exceptional  nation in the history of the world and to preserve that status, we have a chance to change or at least slow down the implementation of these seriously flawed standards. For sake of the future for both our children and our nation, please do what you can. THANK YOU!!!