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.)
