This reminds of Alexis de Toqueville’s remarks in Democracy in America:
Among democratic nations new families are constantly springing up, others are constantly falling away, and all that remain change their condition; the woof of time is every instant broken and the track of generations effaced. Those who went before are soon forgotten; of those who will come after, no one has any idea: the interest of man is confined to those in close propinquity to himself. As each class gradually approaches others and mingles with them, its members become undifferentiated and lose their class identity for each other. Aristocracy had made a chain of all the members of the community, from the peasant to the king; democracy breaks that chain and severs every link of it. —Chapter Two, “Of Individualism in Democratic Countries.”
Of course the students in South Dakota will never hear this quote since it was written before 1877.
Michael Amolin, teacher/curricular designer who defends the decision in the video (or at least I think that’s what he is doing), comes across as desperately trying to justify these changes. First, he seems to think that the study of history is only about dates, timelines and memorization. Second, he has a very, very thin view of what it means to be a citizen.
Perhaps this is because Amolin teaches chemistry and physics. He has an EdD and he wrote his dissertation at the University South Dakota on “laboratory-based professional development and reformed teaching practices in the science classroom.” I don’t know if Amolin is representative of the mindset of the members of the committee who decided to remove early American history from the curriculum, but if he is, the kids of South Dakota are definitely in trouble.
Do we want the past to help students become better citizens and make a contribution to our democratic society? Of course we do. In my Why Study History?” Reflecting on the Importance of the Past, I argued that history is essential for sustaining a civil society. It is also essential for a thriving democracy, as I argued here.
There are a lot of ways in which the study of history can contribute to our democracy. One of them is to see that every contemporary event is rooted in a larger context. Another is to see that present events are contingent upon things that happened in the past. And what about the long-term causes behind things that happen in the present?
Sadly, the students of South Dakota have had the very foundations of American citizenship ripped out from under them.
If this video is correct, South Dakota students will no longer learn about:
- The American Revolution: As Americans, the children of South Dakota will learn nothing about the ideals and values on which their nation was built. How does this make them good citizens?
- The Constitution: As Americans, the children of South Dakota will learn nothing about how the United States government works or the rights afforded to all United States citizens. How does this make them good citizens?
- Women’s Suffrage: Goodbye Seneca Falls and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. South Dakota students will be left with a view of the past in which women were always able to vote.
- Slavery: How will South Dakota students understand race-relations in the United States without learning about slavery as the roots of the Civil Rights movement and other black protest movements, including Black Lives Matter?
- Early Native Americans: I would think that any resident of South Dakota should know something about the Indians. As it now stands, their understanding of native American history will begin with the United States attempts to drive the Dakota, Lakota, and Yankton Sioux from their lands and will end with Indian reservations and casinos.
- The Rise of a Democratic Society
- Westward Expansion: Wouldn’t educators in South Dakota want their students to know something about this? Wouldn’t this movement be an important part of South Dakota identity?
- The Civil War
Hat Tip: Thanks to Jimmy Dick for bringing this story to my attention.
Tom Van Dyke says
Under the new standards, social studies lessons will encourage more investigation and analysis, focusing on skills students will need for college and a career, such as critical thinking, problem solving and communication.
Jimmy Dick says
I wonder how much of this is to free up classes for STEM? As TVD points out, the new standards are based on skills students need for college and a career and that is a great pedagogical step forward. However, as Sam Wineburg has pointed out so often at Stanford, history classes are the best classes for developing those skills. http://sheg.stanford.edu/
As John has pointed out in his book and on his blog, as well as Peter Seixas, Bob Bain, Gary Nash and many other historians and educators across the country, history education is a crucial part of establishing knowledge of one's country. I could link quotes galore about that. The essentials of citizenship come from studying early American history.
Let's not knock the Ed.D degree now. That's a very good degree (and I am working on my own in education at the doctoral study phase). I have a strong feeling that STEM and the how K-12 approaches history education is involved in this decision more than anything else.
John Fea says
Jimmy: I was not knocking the Ed.D. degree. It is a very fine degree. I was knocking the fact that he has an Ed.D in science education. What gives him the credibility to help shape social studies or history curriculum?
Jimmy Dick says
I agree. That is why I think this has a lot more to do with STEM than anything else. I do run into folks who cannot understand that an Ed.D is a different type of doctoral degree. They seem to think Ph.D is it and everything else is a lesser degree. I find that interesting because many of those people have a Ph.D and absolutely no idea how to teach except through lecture.
Tom Van Dyke says
I read that even the edu-industrial complex considers the Ed.D a joke, which is why they segregated it into its own ghetto, away from real doctorates and legitimate degrees.
It all makes sense now–A close friend of mine scored his masters in Ed so the state would pay him an extra $20K a year. Biggest intellectual joke and most ideologically oppressive environment of his “education.” He kept his thoughts to himself, collected their degree, and now he cashes it in.
He got the last laugh, but unfortunately, the joke's on our students, who pay good money to be “educated” by these frauds. Not funny.
Jimmy Dick says
And once again Tom Van Dyke displays his total ignorance of education. Have a nice day, Tom. You can go back to saying, “No Whammies!” now.
John Fea says
OK guys. (Tom and Jimmy). I have given you both enough leash. Let's stop the name calling and personal attacks. Last warning. –JF