Mississippi's Proposed Social Studies Standards Part 2: My Head is Literally Exploding...I Just Can't...

Inquiry Arc.  I honestly did not know what this was but looked it up and realized it is everything history teachers have been trained to do for the past twenty years (just stated as some fancy words).  But somehow, because the National Social Studies Council has "created" this "new" concept and called it the "inquiry arc," the inquiry arc is a concerning principle because it takes away basic knowledge and replaces it with "action civics"...per an Ocean Springs school board member (link to article): 

“In the C3 Framework, ‘action civics’ matters more than fundamental knowledge and promotes the central concept of the ‘Inquiry Arc,'” Ocean Springs School Board member Kacee Waters wrote recently in an op-ed. (link to op-ed)

There are just so many things wrong with what she is saying and doing. Did she do her research on "inquiry arc" and what the specifics are to this concept? Um... I can answer that.  No, she did not.  And listing some "research" in an article does not make you an expert.  Did she talk to teachers about this?  "To inquire" means to investigate, to ask questions, to delve deeper into the context.  An arc is a shape.  Therefore, the "inquiry arc" is a framework to help students learn historical events and dive deeper into the impact it had and how students can take what they learned and apply to present-day or future events.  Isn't that what we want students to do?  Take knowledge and apply to future situations/problems?  Look at the diagram below:

Is there anything in this chart that you find questionable?  Well, this is from the National Council's page that discusses what Mrs. Waters finds so questionable.  And you know what?  This is the basis of the "inquiry arc," and this is only one representation of the "inquiry" process (not as an ARC but a chart).  I think I can speak on behalf of my high school social studies peeps that this is exactly what we want out students to do if they are going to be the future leaders of this great nation! How are students going to learn to  be CIVICALLY engaged if they just think social studies is rote memorization. Here is an example of what this crazy, radical "inquiry arc/C3" idea means...

In AP Government, my students have been diving into various documents to answer an overarching theme: what is the purpose of government? (in other words, why do you have to have a government).  From that larger idea, we have analyzed (and analyzing...haven't finished one yet) three sources: personal letters from John Adams on four historical events (Stamp Act, Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, and Shay's Rebellion), the Declaration of Independence, and Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail.  Through these sources, the students are finding evidence to support two questions: what is legitimate dissent/protest and what is legitimate expression/action. Parents who don't understand the "bigger picture" will automatically say that I am some radical teacher incorporating a radical concept called "action civics" (whatever the heck that is).  But think about this...guess what John Adams said in his letters about the Stamp Act?  He encouraged the colonists in their frustration...he supported their dissent...he said (in my own words) they had every right to be upset so BE ENGAGED...TALK, WRITE, ACT.  The irony of all this is the people saying no to "action civics" is doing exactly what they say is "dangerous."  I told my 10th graders they may not can vote but they can email their legislators!  They can sit down with an administrator or district leader to discuss concerns (which I had a student do years ago concerning a student handout issue).  Isn't that what we want the future generation to do?  Another example... John Adams didn't only tell the colonists they had every right to be upset (concerning those events) BUT he gave a great picture of what "action"/expression should look like.  Did you know that John Adams was the lawyer of the British soldiers who were tried over the Boston Massacre?  Why? Because he said violence and mob rule (which the colonists did) WAS NOT how your dissent should be handled.  And imagine this... Adams was so convicted in this that he literally represented the hated British soldiers.  Imagine the pressure and "bad-mouthing" he took from his friends.  Adams basically told the colonists (through his personal letters) they had every right to be upset over the quartering of soldiers.  However, the way they went about expressing their anger was mob rule.  This would also be the same sentiment he shared about Shay's Rebellion.  My students READ historical sources by a Founding Father, analyzed and found evidence from those sources, and applied to the two questions we are answering.  Dr. King's letter...we have just started this activity but the students will be finding evidence in his letter that supports the same two questions.  And do you know what encouraged me today?  My same students reading his letter in their English class right now and them being able to draw from my class and English class, connecting both historical and literary perspectives!  That, my friends, is this "crazy, radical" notion called the "inquiry arc" - making students learn historical facts and applying to a bigger picture.  And if anything, these kids NEED to read Adam's letters and Dr. King's letter because they both give groundwork into how to be civically engaged (to take action, through a nonviolence approach, when you feel that something is unjust...Socrates and St. Augustine even talked about just/unjust laws).  

I know I totally digressed but I honestly cannot believe that someone with so little knowledge of how history is taught would keep giving statements about radical, crazy crap being taught in classes when it is clearly not true.  If there is a teacher or a classroom that is incorporating radical ideas, then parents should be concerned.  But guess what?  As Dr. Wright stated in the legislative meeting today, lessons and curriculums are done on the local level (district by district...school by school).  If you have a concern, as a parent, then go to the teacher to clarify.  If that doesn't work, then to the principal.  If the District is adopting controversial stuff, go to the board meetings or ask for a meeting.  If Mrs. Waters has specific examples of teachers doing this, then that is a problem but one that should be taken up with the school or district because it is not mandated by our state's social studies standards.  What has happened within this past week are people who clearly have not done the research going out and "talking it up" about all these "dangers" which do not exist!  

I am including three files to his post - the old standards, the new standards. and a brief side-by-side comparison of a few grades.  There are some out there that are saying that "patriotism" is omitted from the social studies standards.  Well, it was moved from kindergarten to first grade.  I can understand how some may view that as "unpatriotic" but it was MOVED to another grade - not omitted.  Also, the few I pulled clearly show that there is no CRT crap (look at Minnesota's proposed changes to see CRT in standards). 

File 1 - Old Social Studies Standards

File 2 - Proposed Social Studies Standards

File 3 - a terrible file that shows a side by side comparison of a few grades' history and civil rights standards.  The grade level is indicated in the first column (k for Kindergarten, 1 for First, etc.)

Should you be concerned about our state's new social studies revisions? My thoughts...

Right now, one of the most heated debates in our state is the proposed revisions made to the social studies curriculum.  Without much research, a local website (Yall Politics) published an article that stated parents should be concerned about the new standards.  This article gave no specifics and provided no research as to why parents should be concerned but relied on vaguely worded statements on a website, not to mention making false assumptions.  This article was sent to me from two different friends, asking me if I had read it.  I had not read it and didn’t think much about it until recently when there now is heated debate in our state.  Why does this matter to me?  Because not only was I one of forty individuals who looked over the revisions (and named on the acknowledgements page) but also because I am a concerned parent/teacher in my state.

CRT.  No one knew much about critical race theory until this past year.  I first heard about it from my assistant pastor who is writing his dissertation on CRT (and who began his work long before it became a “hot” topic in our nation).  I am adamantly opposed to CRT.  If you think CRT is just teaching “civil rights” and “diversity,” you are wrong.  CRT has nothing to do with teaching about the civil rights movement or teaching diversity within the curriculum (which is falsely promoted by some).  It has nothing to do with just offering a different perspective.  Here is a previous discussion I had with my assistant pastor: (specifics redacted)

Me: Hey!  ... the CRT conversation came up between a few of us...One never denounced it and said --will never share both sides of a viewpoint.  The other --said why teach CRT because if you are a good teacher, you will have those tough conversations in your classrooms. But then -- said that -- thinks people believe that by teaching CRT that little “communists” will be walking out of the classroom. 

I normally do not speak up or engage in these types of convos because I do not like “confrontation" or what may go on behind my back (the talking and attacking and the texting “oh my word…Walker totally just made me mad” or whatever).  I am trying to get over that because sometimes you have to stand on conviction which may mean that those types of slanderous activities will result (and could be a form of persecution in some situations).  Saying that…when the teacher said -- will never share “both viewpoints,” I responded by saying there is a difference between balancing political viewpoints and calling out evil. If you only teaching one political viewpoint, that is wrong.  But saying slavery, segregation, Hitler (whatever) is evil is totally different and evil has to be called out for what it is.  You can’t justify what Hitler did or share a viewpoint that supports what he did...

Saying all that… if this type of conversation comes up again with a mixed group, what is a small, concise response I can give? It seems -- are totally missing the argument against CRT in the classrooms.   

Assistant Pastor: I like your response (there’s a difference between balancing political viewpoints and calling out evil). It is my opinion that when the mass majority of people think of CRT they’re primarily thinking about the civil rights of blacks and things like “black effort at/and lament over” equality.  In that sense, CRT is just a tool/a framework to examine society through the lens of those who are seeking that end. In my opinion, it still doesn’t make it right, but that’s the hook that has deceived so many.

The truth is CRT is an insidious ideological force which seeks to accomplish the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers (and particularly John Adams) had in mind. Their idea was E Pluribus Unum, “out of many one,” the idea that out of many states (and by extension many people, cultures…) there would be one nation (one people). The Founders also recognized that the American experiment could only work if the nation recognized and submitted itself to its objective source, God (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” ‘John Adams’). So, CRT is a secular ideological force which seeks (or is used by its advocates) to tear down every vestige of what America is and was meant to be; morally (in God we trust), economically (capitalism replaced by socialism/communism), personally (individualism), and collectively (out of many one vs. many divided without any identifiable remedy).  Everything about CRT is antithetical to what America is supposed to be about, and thus it is inherently a threat to the existence of this nation as we know it.

On the issue of sharing both sides, I’m all for it, if it's an honest endeavor that seeks to identify truth. A good example of this would be the Evolution vs. Creation debate/argument…if done honestly, the truth will always win and those who were exposed to the process will also be winners, not just because they found truth, but because they will also learn how to go about finding it when they come across other competing ideas in the future.

So, how does this conversation on CRT and the new standards coincide?  Because the Yall Politics article (and now many in our state) falsely assume the new standards incorporate CRT just because the National Council on Social Studies was used as a reference.  There is now an assumption that CRT is making its way into our curriculum.  I can honestly say I have looked over the revisions several times and see no link between the two.  I keep looking at it and can't find anything that isn't taught normally. Teaching cultural differences, diversity, civil rights, etc. IS NOT CRT.  CRT is way more than just teaching how the United States is a "melting pot." Although there may have been a reference to the National Council does not mean all their standards and viewpoints were incorporated into the new revisions (by the way, you can click on the news article below to see the revisions yourself).   I have even done research as to how CRT can be sneaked into the curriculum and still do not find any correlation.  Something else that bothers me are statements made by the previous state’s social studies coordinator (who now works elsewhere).  He was quoted by a local news station over his concerns that the revisions will enable teachers to not teach specifics about our state and nation’s history.  One example as quoted by the local station: (click here for article) 

“The previous objective stated was for teachers to teach students “names of important people of the modern Civil Rights Movement, including Mississippians. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, James Meredith, Fannie Lou Hamer, Charles Evers, etc.”

The newly proposed revisions would only require teachers to “identify important people of the modern Civil Rights Movement, including Mississippians.” 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the two are the same but just worded differently.  “Teach students...” and “Identify” are basically the same thing.  Just because the new revision does not list the actual names of the people that should be taught does not mean that teachers would not teach them. Basically, to IDENTIFY means to specifically name individuals.  And in all honesty, does this person think so little of teachers that they would just choose to negate that fact in their classrooms?  Seriously, be real!  Here is another example he stated in this article:

Another example of the changes highlighted in the proposal - the previous objective was for teachers to teach students to “examine the Southern resistance to Reconstruction reforms, including: Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, Ku Klux Klan, etc.”

However, the new revisions would only require teachers to “analyze Southern resistance to Reconstruction reforms.”  As a result, teachers won’t be required to teach about events or people not listed in the new proposal, which Spears said is concerning.

My head is literally exploding right now.  “To teach” is such a vague term.  “To analyze,” on the other hand, involves MORE than rote memorization and the recalling of facts (which is what “to teach” insinuates).  You can’t analyze without identifying events and relaying how those events had an impact.  He of all people should know that.  

For what it’s worth, here is my take on the recent debate.  This is solely my OPINION as a public-school parent and a 22-year social studies veteran educator:

1) People are so concerned over what is stated in the state social studies curriculum when what you should be concerned about is individual teachers who take it upon themselves to inject bias or distort truth.  This is happening all over the country.  Some are even posting Tik Tok videos talking about themselves doing this.  You don’t have to have anything stated in a state curriculum for teachers to take it upon themselves to say and do whatever.  Do all teachers do this?  Absolutely not and I would say majority don't.  However, I will never forget a teacher at a D.C. teacher institute I attended saying he had a “duty” to tell the students what he believed and why.  We just had to agree to disagree.  At no time should a teacher promote one agenda over another while teaching a class nor influence students with his/her opinions.  I don’t even tell students my favorite president because I don’t want them to know which way I lean.  No teacher should grade one student harder than another student just because his/her beliefs are different.  I literally told my AP Gov students that today – to please answer the questions honestly without fear that I will think less of them or grade differently.  All teachers should create a safe environment where all students feel comfortable to express opinions and discuss complex issues without the thought of being treated differently.  Teachers have a responsibility to be fair and balanced in the classroom, to address the difficult topics without anyone being made to feel guilty.  Parents trust teachers with their kids eight hours each day.  We have an immense responsibility to parents to create that safe environment.  This doesn’t mean schools can’t teach the ugly parts of our past nor use just one source for historical reference.  Incorporating multiple perspectives of historical events is important, but distorting truth to CREATE a narrative (like the 1619 Project) is doing injustice to the responsibility we have as teachers and to parents.

2) My true concern is that many truly do not care about social studies and/or civics education.  In my state, I feel (remember, MY OPINION) social studies only becomes a concern to schools in the 11th grade because it is a state tested subject that is included in a school’s accountability model.  And this ties in to my next point – state assessments are out of control.

A few years ago, a non-profit organization did a study to understand the amount of testing (and prepping) done within our state.  Not only was there a big emphasis on prepping for the test but found that teachers (especially in elementary grades) will forgo teaching content to prepare students for the test.  In essence, since social studies isn’t tested in the lower grades, social studies education may possibly be sacrificed at the expense of tested areas.  And can you blame the teachers who are pressured every day about student growth and scores?  Which leads me to a wide array of rhetorical questions that have been flooding my mind for the past few weeks...

• Are teachers valued based on what they produce (in terms of scores)?  What if you don’t teach a state-tested area?  Does your content matter?  What if you teach an elective at the high school level?  Is your subject valued?  Does it matter?  We are all told we are in it together, but are we?  Do good scores and results make a teacher more “valuable” than a teacher in a non-tested subject?  

• Aren’t kids more than a grade? A score? As an AP teacher, I used to put pressure on myself and the kids to score the 4’s and 5’s on the exam.  Do I want them to score high? Absolutely. The difference now, though, is I tell them they are valued even if they worked hard and scored a 1.  Is that a popular opinion in my state? NOPE because a 1 does not help the school in the accountability model.  Does that 1 reflect me as a teacher?  Some say yes.  I used to say yes.  Now, though, I say no (I can prepare a student but can’t take the test for them).  

Education is more than a test and a score.  I am constantly telling them that, but, sadly, I think teachers need to hear that, too!  Incredible teachers across my state are burned out from the pressure to produce good test scores.  Accountability is important but at what cost? You may be asking yourself how all this relates to the social studies debate.  Well, ask yourself this?  Do social studies classes even matter anymore for this debate to even be legit?

So where do we go from here?  

• Be informed on what is going on but don’t be entrapped by “clickbait” articles.  If there isn’t evidence provided other than a vague statement, question the legitimacy of the article.  This article has caused a firestorm in our state... (and rightly so if it were true)

• Be involved as a parent.  Ask what your child is learning.  Ask if they are learning social studies.  Not just social studies but ask questions...talk...know what they are being taught and have discussions. If your child comes home saying something that is concerning to you, talk to your child and the teacher to clarify any possible misunderstanding.  You will be amazed at what is going on in the classrooms but students are too scared to say anything to a parent or administration.         

• Speak up! Being PROACTIVE is better than being REACTIVE.  Some mock those who take a proactive stance but oh well... teachers, if something concerns you, make your concerns known.   

For those who may be interested, here is a bill that has been submitted that relates to this debate (which isn't geared so much to the social studies curriculum but individual teachers/districts). And ironically, it came from Yall Politics website. 😂 link - discussion on bill Link - actual bill           

As I said earlier, I am adamantly opposed to CRT and the use of the 1619 Project in classrooms.  Considering I have two daughters who will be impacted by these revisions and considering my stance, I do not have any immediate concerns with the new revisions to the social studies curriculum.  Some are saying we need transparency.  Well, look at the acknowledgements page and look at the different names who reviewed these standards (um...I do believe that is transparency...these revisions were not done behind closed doors).  If you see anyone you know, talk to that person.  Ask questions so any confusion can be clarified.