2020 Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Social Studies First Draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grimmson

Puritan Board Sophomore
It has recently come to my intention that there are several issues related to the first draft of the "2020 Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Social Studies." I did a search on the standards for Holocaust and for World War II. I did not see any standards that were directly mention the Holocaust by name. And I saw only one standard that directly references World War II by name. I did see several standards related to post-World War II. I have the standard below:

"19.9.2 Analyze two or more conflicting narratives about global conflict, considering how different individuals, communities, or nations have presented and narrated global conflicts, such as World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War."

I do not know how many members have the children in the Minnesota school system, but I would recommend that parents look at the standards and notify their schools regarding deficiencies in the Standards related to American history.

I know there are people in here interested in World War II and it maybe useful for them to be aware of the desired changes in the standards as seen by the first draft. I have a link to the draft below:

I do not have a problem if there is a desire for the moving of this thread to a different forum.
 
Putting aside the issue of whether Christians should send their kids to government schools or not, the lack of attention given to WWII is not that big a deal.....yet. We are 75 years post-war with the post-war order quickly crumbling around us. History classes typically don't include recent history, particularly that which directly affects us today. I graduated from high school a quarter of a century ago with very little WWII taught in history class, it was simply to recent. Recent history has a tendency to devolve into historiography rather than straight history.

Having said all of that, with the war generation largely gone historians can start getting to the task of writing an unbiased or maybe better put a dispassionate history of WWII. If the schools in 25 years still aren't teaching WWII then there will be a real problem.
 
Having said all of that, with the war generation largely gone historians can start getting to the task of writing an unbiased or maybe better put a dispassionate history of WWII. If the schools in 25 years still aren't teaching WWII then there will be a real problem.

The task has been started and will never be completed. History books will need to be continually revised if new primary sources are found or flawed narrative are detected.
 
I am having a lot of troubles with regards to high school history curriculum. My experience tells me that those courses never encourage me to plunge deeper by scrutinizing historical narrative with logical reasonings and primary sources. Historical events are far more complicated than what had been presented, yet history students can only accept narrative from textbooks and instructors. All I learn in high school were just mere facts and dates, no question asked. It would be better if high schools drop history courses and allow pupils to explore the topic by themselves.
 
I am having a lot of troubles with regards to high school history curriculum. My experience tells me that those courses never encourage me to plunge deeper by scrutinizing historical narrative with logical reasonings and primary sources. Historical events are far more complicated than what had been presented, yet history students can only accept narrative from textbooks and instructors. All I learn in high school were just mere facts and dates, no question asked. It would be better if high schools drop history courses and allow pupils to explore the topic by themselves.
Most high school courses are survey courses. They don't exist to ask questions but to learn the basic facts of history. That knowledge is in incredible short supply, especially at the college level which is really the level to ask the deeper moral questions about history.
 
I am having a lot of troubles with regards to high school history curriculum. My experience tells me that those courses never encourage me to plunge deeper by scrutinizing historical narrative with logical reasonings and primary sources. Historical events are far more complicated than what had been presented, yet history students can only accept narrative from textbooks and instructors. All I learn in high school were just mere facts and dates, no question asked. It would be better if high schools drop history courses and allow pupils to explore the topic by themselves.
Things are changing. They are gearing up toward more primary sources. However, and I think this stems from elementary school, many students lack critical background knowledge in nearly everything. You can't sufficiently read or at least comprehend without it, let alone think critically about something. E.D. Hirsch has written a ton this.

While I wasn't able to view the standards, if its like Colorado, I like the leeway. One can craft a curriculum based upon what they believe is the most important, assuming your PLC agrees. It can be a downside, however, with CRT teachers...as most are becoming.
 
Ah, I see. It finally managed to download.
Yep, this is the sort of trash that I am up against. Nothing wrong with widening the chorus of voices in historical study however, it should be only the consequential ones that get taught in context. And we know that ain't a two-spirit witch doctor that no one has ever heard about.
 
Things are changing. They are gearing up toward more primary sources. However, and I think this stems from elementary school, many students lack critical background knowledge in nearly everything. You can't sufficiently read or at least comprehend without it, let alone think critically about something. E.D. Hirsch has written a ton this.

While I wasn't able to view the standards, if its like Colorado, I like the leeway. One can craft a curriculum based upon what they believe is the most important, assuming your PLC agrees. It can be a downside, however, with CRT teachers...as most are becoming.
Students should be encouraged to go the archive center, you know. :)
 
But who decided what constitute facts here?
Napoleon lost at Waterloo, King Henry VIII had six wives, William of Normandy won England in the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Jesus rose from the dead the third dayafter his crucifixion, the Reformation began in 1517. Historical facts are historical facts.

What matters in a historical survey course is highlighting the important events, nearly all are political, religious or note some scientific achievement that vastly changed civilization. Nothing else matters, in fact the focus on the trivial (the lives of peasants and other random people) is part of the problem with the Marxist vision of history so dominate in schools today. 99.99% of us don't matter in a historical sense. The major political (mostly revolutions and wars, some legal) and religious events do matter because they shape society for the 99.99% of us who will ultimately be forgotten or at best might be a name on a grave or a birth certificate seen hundreds of years from now.
 
Most high school courses are survey courses. They don't exist to ask questions but to learn the basic facts of history. That knowledge is in incredible short supply, especially at the college level which is really the level to ask the deeper moral questions about history.
This kind of content has degraded simply. The overaction against too much memorization has led to no memorization. A homeschooled high school aged girl at our church is taking college classes and the history class uses no textbook. The 'prof' has told the class he'll teach him what they need to know. :(
 
I graduated high school in 2015 in Wisconsin and took AP US and European history while I was there, among other history classes. An incredible amount of time was given from fourth to 12th grade to Holocaust and WWII education, including reading Elie Wiezel's Night and Corrie Ten Boom's Hiding Place in the Eighth Grade (the latter was one choice of several). I don't think any other time in history was given the same level of attention. We read a fair amount of primary sources throughout the years. It's true that less focus is given to memorizing dates, but students were still expected to know events, names, and historical movements. We did have a textbook and were expected to read it to pass classes. The only bad things I have to say about the experience is 1) we had to read Zinn, a good-for-nothing commie, and 2) the textbook was very poor on the Reformation and attributed it to economic causes (Calvinism is about getting rich, donchaknow?). I also recall being told in primary school that the puritans didn't put out fires because they believed their neighbor's house was predestined to burn down.
 
Usually the standards committees allow input from the general public. I would ask them when and how private citizens can voice their concerns.
 
1) we had to read Zinn
Zinn is a registered Communist. The best rule is to avoid him.

Usually, when I refer to primary sources, I also includes archival materials, not just the one provided by school.

I heard of a story of a Finnish delegation who visit the Russian archive to investigate the Soviet atrocity on the Finnish population during the Winter War (1939-1940). When there were materials that prove such, the access was immediately prohibited by the government. From my knowledge, access to the Russian archive is still with some restrictions. Imagine how much sensation we have if we have full access of it.

Such obscurity and distortions change my perception of histography.
 
Last edited:
I graduated high school in 2015 in Wisconsin and took AP US and European history while I was there, among other history classes. An incredible amount of time was given from fourth to 12th grade to Holocaust and WWII education, including reading Elie Wiezel's Night and Corrie Ten Boom's Hiding Place in the Eighth Grade (the latter was one choice of several). I don't think any other time in history was given the same level of attention. We read a fair amount of primary sources throughout the years. It's true that less focus is given to memorizing dates, but students were still expected to know events, names, and historical movements. We did have a textbook and were expected to read it to pass classes. The only bad things I have to say about the experience is 1) we had to read Zinn, a good-for-nothing commie, and 2) the textbook was very poor on the Reformation and attributed it to economic causes (Calvinism is about getting rich, donchaknow?). I also recall being told in primary school that the puritans didn't put out fires because they believed their neighbor's house was predestined to burn down.
I'll say something once its moved to other forums...
 
This kind of content has degraded simply. The overaction against too much memorization has led to no memorization. A homeschooled high school aged girl at our church is taking college classes and the history class uses no textbook. The 'prof' has told the class he'll teach him what they need to know. :(
The problem is that kids need to memorize, otherwise they're never going to be able to think about the things they have memorized.

Memorization is like sitting quietly in church. We teach 1-2 year olds to sit quietly in church so that when they're 8-10 they can start to understand what is being said. If you're fighting with a 10 year old to settle down in church they aren't paying attention to the sermon and cannot think about the contents.

The same principle applies to history memorization. If you learn the basic facts of history, of which there are many, when you're a teenager you can start thinking about what these events mean and hopefully judge them against the lighg of scripture. If you don't know the basic facts though, you have no way of really thinking about history and you'll find yourself floundering around trying to connect things. It's all because you didn't have a base from which to start.

Any professor who says all you need to learn is what he has to say in class is a narcissist with an agenda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top