Comments on US History Standards from an Attorney and Teacher of the Constitution

Share this...

Facebook

Twitter

As promised in our last alert, here are the comments on the high school US History Standards by Education Liberty Watch Board member Marjorie Holsten, an attorney and teacher of the US Constitution for home schooled students.  The third draft of the social studies standards is now available for a final public comment period.  Comments may be submitted here UNTIL MIDNIGHT ON MAY 8TH.

INTRODUCTION:

As an Attorney who has taught Constitutional Law to homeschooled high students at local homeschool co-operatives for a number of years, I was anxious to review the content of Minnesota’s new proposed Social Studies Standards for senior high students.  I hoped to see studies of the founding documents of our nation, including discussions of how the checks and balances our founding fathers drafted were intended to limit the power of government to allow people to fully enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without governmental interference.  I knew I would be disappointed by the content, but was unprepared to have my breath taken away by the amount of historical revisionism, liberal bias, and politically correct indoctrination.  I cannot help but think of the statement of Hans Schemm from the Nazi Teacher’s League who said, “Those who have the youth on their side control the future.'”

The Social Studies Standards have four sections:  U.S. History, World History, Geography, and Economics.  The U.S. History Section is by far the worst and is the only topic covered in this article.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

The word “analyze” appears 26 times in the U.S. History Standards, and the word “evaluate” appears four times.  The acts of “analyzing” and “evaluating” require students not only to learn and understand material, but also to make judgments.  When students are given only a limited amount of information, and what they are given is one-sided, any judgment they make will be skewed.  It is inappropriate to require students to do so much analyzing and evaluating under these circumstances.  In contrast, the World History section uses the word “analyze” only 7 times, and uses the word “describe” 36 times. (Obviously there were two different authors, with the author of the U.S. History being far to the left of the author of the World History Section.)

EXPLORATION:

The first section on U.S. History is appropriately titled, “U.S. History – Beginning to 1620.”  1620 was a landmark year in our nation’s history, as that was when Pilgrims in search of religious freedom landed at Plymouth Rock.   Stunningly, the standards make no mention of the Pilgrims.  Instead, attention is focused on people “forced to relocate to the colonies.”  (§9.1.4.2.3)  Students are asked to describe the indigenous peoples before European colonization (§9.1.3.1.1), and then “analyze the consequences of early interactions between Europeans and indigenous nations.”  (§9.1.4.1.1)  This is followed by a requirement that students analyze the impacts of colonial government on “enslaved populations.”  (§9.1.4.2.1)  Students then study “the exploitation of enslaved people” (§ 9.1.4.3.1), “the development of non-free labor systems,” and “the experiences of enslaved peoples.”  (§9.1.4.3.2).  It gets worse.

Continue reading »

Please Comment!! Social Studies Standards Continue Disastrous Course in Final Draft!

Share this...

Facebook

Twitter

The third draft of the social studies standards is now available for a final public comment period.  Comments may be submitted here until May 8th.

Although some good change has come out of the social studies standards process which is now in its final phases, thanks to your good efforts and comments, sadly, many of the same problems plus some others we have found are present since our last report. A more detailed report on the U.S. History strand is coming soon from an attorney who teaches the Constitution.  Below are some highlights and lowlights.

Some Good News:

1)      The Declaration of Independence is now mentioned and discussed at the high school level:

“Analyze the impact of early documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, on the development of the government of the United States.”

2)      One Declaration principle of “popular sovereignty,” also called “consent of the governed” is specifically mentioned.

3)      Property rights are mentioned in the context of the failure to secure them being an economic problem.

4)      The Second Amendment is mentioned, which is better than the federally subsidized civics textbook. We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution that fails to mention the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments at all.

5)      Capitalism is now mentioned in a neutral context instead of a negative one in economics and the world history strands:

“Compare and contrast the characteristics of traditional, command (planned), market-based (capitalistic), and mixed economic systems.”
“Explain the ideas of capitalism, communism, and socialism and analyze the impact of these beliefs on politics, industry, and labor relations in later 19th-century Europe.”

6)      The United States is still referred to as a republic in the standards and benchmarks:

“The U.S. republic is based on specific principles and beliefs.” (Standard)

Many Grave Causes of Concern – Here is a far from comprehensive list: Continue reading »

Media and Presentation Alert

Share this...

Facebook

Twitter

MPR Invites Dr. Effrem to Debate Early Childhood Quality Rating Systems Online Starting 4/18

After your great work and support to get rid of the ineffective, bureaucratic quality rating system (QRS) in the House education spending bill, the media, particularly the more liberal media took notice.  Education Liberty Watch was mentioned three times in the ensuing days.  Two of those mentions took place on very liberal websites, Growth and Justice and MinnPost, where there was great weeping and gnashing of teeth about the House’s very wise decision to get rid of that bad program. Dr. Effrem published a rebuttal to those stories/editorials here. The other mention occurred a couple of days ago on Politics in Minnesota as part of their report on the clash within the GOP between the big government interests of big business and the small government interests of the conservative grassroots.  (More about this will be written soon)

All of this aroused the interest of Mr. Michael Caputo, moderator of Minnesota Public Radio’s online discussion and debate forum Insight Now.  He has invited Dr. Effrem and Todd Otis of Ready4K, a liberal pro-government involvement in preschool proponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of quality rating systems.  The debate will begin here today (4/18) with opening statements and will conclude on the 21st.  Mr. Caputo said that comment would be welcome, but that people must register here.  Please do join the debate!

Dr. Effrem to Speak At HD 50B Event at Moe’s in Mounds View on 4/25 at 7:00 PM

Many thanks go the House District 50B Republicans for inviting Dr. Effrem to speak on education issues in St. Paul and Washington at their event on April 25th at 7 PM at Moe’s in Mounds View.  Details and directions are available here.  Please join Dr. Effrem and the House district 50 B Republicans for a lively discussion!

Some Good News in HHS Bills

Share this...

Facebook

Twitter

Although Education Liberty Watch primarily deals with the effects of education programs and spending and their effects on academic excellence, parents’ rights and the propagation of the American heritage of freedom, we also monitor a number of issues in the health and human services realm that affect parents’ rights and family autonomy to have parents raise, educate and care for their children without government interference.  Both the Minnesota House and Senate finished their massive health and human services policy and spending bills in recent days.  Although spending remains a major problem in both the House and Senate bills and the House bill being significantly more bureaucratic than the Senate bill, there is still some very good news that should be trumpeted and for which the Republicans should be thanked.  Contact information for the House is available here and the Senate information is available here.

1)      Health Care Freedom of Choice Act Now in Both House and Senate Bills – This provision that asserts Minnesota’s state sovereignty to not force its citizens to buy health insurance as mandated by the federal government in the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama Care) is now in both omnibus bills. This is great news for freedom and for families struggling in this economy to not have to buy government mandated health insurance whose premiums will rise and coverage will shrink.  The legislation was introduced by Rep. Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud) and Senator David Hann (R-Eden Prairie). The provision was in the Senate bill. The amendment to add it into the House bill was offered by Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe) on the House floor.  The vote was along party lines.  The authors and all of the legislative Republicans should be thanked.

2)      Protections Regarding State Collection, Storage, and Unconsented Research on Baby DNA in Senate Bill – Thanks to the excellent work of Senator David Hann, Twila Brase and Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, and many concerned parents and citizens, protections from government acquisition, storage and use for research without consent are now in the Senate bill.  Our genetic code contained in DNA is what identifies us as individuals and is the most intimate information we have.  The last entity that should have possession and control of that information is government.

3)      Parent Aware Quality Rating System for Child Care Now GONE from Both HHS Bills – The bureaucratic, ineffective, big government quality rating system about which we have warned you extensively was in the House bill in a watered down form at the behest of Democrat early childhood proponent Rep. Nora Slawik.  House HHS Finance Chairman Jim Abeler (R-Anoka) removed the provision before the House bill went to the floor.  Senate Chairman David Hann never had the provision in the Senate version at all.  Both chairmen should be thanked.

Continue reading »