Though there is plenty of discussion occurring regarding the language arts and math standards that have been drafted for Common Core, there is some solace in knowing that at the end of the day a noun is still a noun and 2+2=4. When it comes to history or, as the progressives have renamed it, social studies, what seems reasonable to teach becomes far less clear. The Common Corers will tell you they are only working on math and language arts, but only a fool would believe there are not people already assigned to develop standards for "social studies" and science. These are two subjects where it is often difficult to separate fact from ideology.
We found one state who is working to develop new social studies standards and a professional view of those standards. Marjorie Holsten, an attorney and teacher of the US Constitution for home schooled students and a board member of Education Liberty Watch, reviewed the third draft of the social studies standards for MN high school students which is now available for a final public comment period. What she found in these standards is staggering and is provided here in its entirety to preserve the thoroughness of her comments.
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.
REVOLUTION:
The next historical section is called
“Revolution and the New Nation, 1754 – 1800.” One would expect students
to learn about America’s early leaders and why they gave their lives,
fortunes, and sacred honor to win independence from the tyranny of Great
Britain. Not so (likely because they are old, dead white men.)
Instead, students “evaluate the impact of the Revolutionary War on
individuals, communities, and institutions in North America.”
(§9.1.5.1.2). No mention is made of Britain’s Declaratory Act of 1766,
which is considered “the line in the sand” that caused the colonial
leaders to consider independence, the concept of taxation without
representation, the Boston Tea Party, or other actual and important
historical events.
CONSTITUTION:
The next section titled “the foundation
of the United States government and nation” finally introduces students
to our founding documents and specifically names the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution (§9.1.5.2.1). No mention is made of
“self-evident truths,” or “inalienable rights,” let alone the same being
endowed by our creator. No mention is made of the Articles of
Confederation and why they didn’t work, of the founding fathers, or any
of the first ten amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights.
No mention is made of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification
conventions, the Federalist Papers, and how we have in existence more
than 15,000 original documents and writings from these conventions to
facilitate the determination of original intent. (Surprise – not –
there is also no mention of original intent.) Absent complete and
accurate information, students will not be able to accurately “analyze
the impact of early documents…on the development of the government of
the United States.” (§9.1.5.2.1)
EXPANSION:
Students then move forward to “Expansion
and Reform, 1792 – 1861,” where they study westward movement and
resulting conflicts “focusing on the dispossession of indigenous land
and the impact on indigenous nations.” (§9.1.6.1.2) This might be
expected in a liberal college class entitled “Indigenous Studies about
Evil White Supressionism,” but not in a class to be taught to all public
high school students in Minnesota.
OMISSIONS:
Students then skip several major wars,
including the Barbery Wars (which is why Thomas Jefferson had a Koran in
his library – he wanted to understand the Muslim pirates, contrary to
Congressman Keith Ellison’s attempted revisionism that Jefferson had an
affinity for Islam), the War of 1812 (during which Francis Scott Keys
wrote our national anthem), the War of Texas’ Independence (students
will never “Remember the Alamo” if they never learn of it), or the
Mexican-American War (where Mexico and the United States agreed on the
boundary between the countries). Students study the Civil War
(discussed below), but then skip World War I. The course should more
accurately be called “Select portions of U.S. History.”
CIVIL WAR:
The next time period is “Civil War and
Reconstruction 1850 – 1877.” I applaud the commission for having
students “analyze the debates over state’s rights, popular sovereignty,
and political compromise,” (§9.1.7.1.1). This is followed by an
assignment to “describe significant individuals, communities, and
institutions instrumental in the Civil War Era” (§9.1.7.1.2), which is
the first time students learn about important individuals in our
nation’s history.
INDUSTRIALISM AND GLOBALISM:
Students then move to “The Development of
an Industrial, Urban, and Global United States, 1870 – 1920.” This
seems appropriate until one sees that students are to “analyze the
impact of westward movement on individuals, communities, and
institutions,” (§9.1.8.1.1), and then examine America’s imperialism
(§9.1.8.1.2). Students then analyze American Indian Policy, and the
“impact on indigenous nations” (§9.1.8.1.3), followed by “the
establishment of labor unions.” (§9.1.8.2.2). The liberal bias is very
evident, especially in light of the noticeable absence of the concepts
of rugged individualism and American exceptionalism.
RACIAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS OF CAPITALISM:
Students then learn about racial
segregation (§9.1.8.3.1), disenfranchisement, growth of racial violence,
and the debates about how to achieve freedom and equality.”
(§9.1.8.3.2) This liberal vein continues to flow as students next
“evaluate the effectiveness of the political responses to the problems
of industrialization, capitalism, urbanization, and political
corruption.” (§9.1.8.4.2). Capitalism is the cornerstone of the freest
nation in the world, and the reason immigrants come to America by the
millions, both legally and illegally.
GREAT DEPRESSION:
Students learn nothing about World War I, and move directly to the Great
Depression. Significant discussion could take place here regarding
economic policies that caused and contributed to the great depression
and its duration. Instead, straight out of left field, students
“examine the contributions of individuals and communities in relation to
the art, literature, and music of the period.” (§9.1.9.1.1)
Students also “analyze how the New Deal
addressed the struggles of the Great Depression and how it transformed
the role of government.” (§9.1.9.1.2) There are two opposing schools
of thought relating to the New Deal, one of which holds that the
unconstitutional government-expanding legislation comprising the “New
Deal” prolonged and worsened the depression. Ample opportunity exists
to show that policies that are being implemented today were tried in the
past, and failed miserably. Students need to be able to learn from
mistakes of the past.
WORLD WAR II:
Students then study World War II. One would hope that they would learn
about the aggression of the Axis forces, culminating in the Pearl Harbor
attack that launched America into World War II. Instead, students
discuss “the factors that led to choosing a side for war.” Choosing a
side? Like our leaders considered joining Hitler in his goal to
exterminate the Jewish people? I don’t think so. This politically
correct but historically questionable discussion of World War II would
not be complete without a discussion of “its impact on the role of women
and disenfranchised communities in America.” (§9.1.9.2.1)
POST WORLD WAR II AND COMMUNISM:
Students then learn about “Post World War
II United States,” which includes a study of “political ideologies,”
where students are asked to “explain how these differences contributed
to the development of the Cold War.” (§9.1.10.2.1) Fortunately,
students are taught about actions taken by the United States “to resist
the spread of Communism.” (§9.1.10.2.2) (Notably, Hitler also spoke
out against Communists – students will not likely learn about the evils
and millions of deaths caused by Marxism and totalitarianism.)
VIETNAM AND THE 1960s:
Students then move into the Vietnam War era, a highly turbulent time in
American history. Room exists for much mischief in the teaching as
students “analyze the cause and effect of the domestic response to the
Vietnam War.” (§9.1.10.3.1)
Students them move into the Civil Rights
era, complete with a requirement that they “analyze” different movements
including African American, Native American, Women, Latino American,
and Counter Culture. (§9.1.10.4.1) Students must also “understand the
changes in American Indian policy” and “analyze its impact on indigenous
nations.” (§9.1.10.4.2). My guess would be that there would be
inadequate coverage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed
discrimination based upon sex and race. I would also surmise that no
mention would be made that it was the Republican party that fought for
civil rights for all, the Democratic party that fought against such
rights, and that civil rights hero Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a
Republican.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
As a homeschooling parent who evaluates curriculum before I purchase it
for my children, I would reject this course in its entirety on the basis
of it being inaccurate, incomplete, and biased far to the left. I
encourage everyone reading this to make your voices heard and submit
comments here to the Minnesota Department of Education as well as to your legislators (House and Senate)
to support the legislation currently in the House Education Finance
Omnibus bill (HF 934) that delays the review and implementation of the
social studies standards for another year.and requires legislative
approval."
It may be frustrating that your child struggles with learning math through the latest fad in teaching process, but what will their future be like if this is what they learn about the country they live in?
