Huh? is an appropriate question when the status quo of schlock is deemed preferable to improving the education of generations of children.
The Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for the Social Studies was written in the early 1980s and confirmed in 1998. There has been no work by the WI Department of Public Instruction on social studies standards since 1998. The delay in standards reconsideration was further put on hold with the adoption of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics in 2010. The DPI’s professed plan was to adopt the CCSS for Science and Social Studies when they were released sometime in this decade.
However, in October 2012 the Council of Chief State School Officers (state school superintendents) terminated any further discussion of common state standards beyond the already released English Language Arts and mathematics standards. The CCSSO along with the National Governor’s Council and Achieve, a group of Fortune 500 companies, comprised the educational reform leadership for writing and authorizing the Common Core standards for ELA and math. The state superintendents, state governors and corporate leaders were on a roll in leading educational standards revision until conservative political forces at the national level caused the elected officials of Common Core leadership to abandon the work.
Conservative politics also has been at play at the state level of educational reforms. Wisconsin was one of 45 states to adopt the ELA and math Common Core standards and was on track to adopt the science and social standards as they were released. In March 2013, Governor Scott Walker and all members of the state legislature received letters from individuals representing Patriot networks, TEA Party committees, Faith and Freedom coalitions, and Young Americans for Liberty asking them to abolish the Common Core standards in Wisconsin. Their complaint is that the Common Core standards are not rigorous enough for Wisconsin children, the Common Core is a federal intrusion into the state’s responsibility for education and further displaces local control, and that the nationalization of educational standards is another “Obamacare.”
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/131126Walker
“I’d like the Legislature to hold those hearings,” Walker said in a response to Wisconsin Reporter’s question on Common Core. “And in the larger context I’d like us to be in the position where we can identify our own unique standards that I think in many ways will be higher and more aggressive than the ones they’re talking about.”
So, what are we to think about social studies education today? As the Governor touts that every child is to become college and career ready as a result of their education in Wisconsin, what should we know about a student’s understanding of government and citizenship, economics and personal finance, US and world history, geography and world cultures? Not to mention the ways in which sociology and psychology help us to understand ourselves and the behaviors of those around us. In Wisconsin, the expectation of a social studies education is now thirty years old and aging fast. We are teaching Millenials and their children the social studies we taught their grandparents.
As the academic standards for social studies now are locked in time in Wisconsin, what do we know about the quality of this status quo? Actually, we know that the quality is not good. In 2011 the Thomas B. Fordham Institute for Advancing Educational Excellence evaluated the “State of State US History Standards” for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. This is the Fordham summary of that evaluation.
“Presidents’ Day 2011 has come and gone, but George Washington would be dismayed by the findings of this new study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Reviewers evaluated state standards for U.S. history in grades K-12. What they found is discouraging: Twenty-eight states—a majority—deserve D or F grades for their academic standards in this key subject. The average grade across all states is a dismal D. Among the few bright spots, South Carolina earns a straight A for its standards and six other jurisdictions—Alabama, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia—garner A-minuses.”
Specifically, Wisconsin’s US History standards earned a grade of “F.”
“Wisconsin’s U.S. history standards, for all practical purposes, do not exist. Their sole content is a list of ten eras in American and Wisconsin history, followed by a few brief and vague directives to understand vast swaths of history and broad historical concepts. Determining an actual course’s scope, sequence, and content rests entirely on the shoulders of local teachers and districts.
Local districts must, we are told, have “the flexibility to determine” not only classroom sequence and organization but also the “content of their social studies curriculum.” For “if teachers are to understand fully the performance standards and the spiraling nature of the content and concepts, they must be actively involved in the process of selecting content and materials.” Yet the only result of such “spiraling” seems likely to be dizzy teachers. They are told to “select” content for their courses but are given no meaningful guidance in doing so. The state abdicates the responsibility of standards to define minimum and shared content expectations for all students. Teachers and districts are left on their own.”
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-us.html
In an imperfect, or at least an overly political world, the immediate question regarding educational standards may be “which is the best basis for student instruction” when every set of new standards will have its critics. Wisconsin is doing a “back to the future” to reinstate/confirm all of its Model Academic Standards. Politically-speaking they may be good enough. Educationally-speaking they are not. Using the Fordham Institute evaluation as a screener, Wisconsin’s English standards earned a D- grade and the mathematics standards earned an F. And, the science and social studies standards for Wisconsin each earned grades of F in the Fordham study.
Wisconsin could do another version of back to the future and re-employ state authorship with legislative oversight. However, the effect of washing educational standards through the legislative process was official adoption of Model Academic Standards graded as D- and F. This process of creating state consensus for approving academic standards is only as good as the last critic’s demands when that person’s vote is the deciding vote cast. Or, when all radical, liberal or conservative, opinions must be accommodated. This consensus process only breeds mediocrity.
In regard to social studies education, should Wisconsin continue to use of homegrown standards rated by Fordham as “F” or the state consider other resources? Should Wisconsin give in to the mandates of local control, vis-à-vis 1984, process that produced “non-directive” and “vague” standards?
This writing is not intended to endorse the Common Core standards as the definitive word in reformed education in the United States. While there are many things good about the Common Core there also are many things that are not good. Diane Ravitch’s speech to the Modern Language Association raises many valid criticisms and questions regarding the Common Core. Interestingly, she was a Core supporter but dropped her support after more intensive investigation. Yet, Ravitch opens an invitation to fix the current ELA and math standards and apply the “fix” procedures to future attempts at Core science and social studies standards.
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/
As a re-beginning point, the National Council for the Social Studies’ C3 Framework (college, career and civic life) was written by national social studies experts, including members of most of the national organizations for the individual disciplines of the social studies. The authors are authentic experts in their field of study. The C3 Framework is not a set of standards. The Framework is a template of social studies principles that should be incorporated into an interdisciplinary instruction of civics, economics, geography and history. The authors of the Framework leave decisions of content and pedagogy to be made by organizations of classroom educators in the various states. They recognized the minefield that exists in attempting to author standards that must be supported by the various special interest groups in our nation. Most importantly, the Framework embeds intellectual inquiry and investigation, strategies for collaborative problem-solving, and ramped up requirements for reading and writing skills. Lastly, the C3 is not tied to the national testing that surrounds the Common Core. The Framework presents a purely academic platform upon which Wisconsin could create a 2014 set of social studies standards.
http://www.socialstudies.org/c3
So, what is the answer to “huh?” The political stalemate to replacing failed educational standards in Wisconsin is not an acceptable status quo for children who have only one pass through their K-12 education. Since 1984, almost thirty graduating classes from Wisconsin high schools have gone into the world with the background of “F” social studies standards. For the social studies, if not the Common Core approach and if not the C3 Framework, then what? Or, is the answer from the right another push toward the privatization of education where state-approved academic standards are not required?