Promoting education that matters.
|Sifting education from current habits.||1|
|Approaches to learning||5|
|Reviewing the Social Studies frameworks||6|
|Summarizing reasons for concern.||6|
Frameworks: Timeline and layout
|The social studies frameworks timeline.||9|
|A layout of the frameworks.||9|
|The general framework structure:||11|
|Frameworks: Key Understandings are of minimal significance||12|
|1: “Key Understandings” aren’t key.||12|
|2: “Key Understandings” are cultural||12|
|3: “Key Understandings” are only popular.||12|
|4: Popular traditions are not principles||13|
|5: “Key Understandings” are not validated or revalidated.||13|
|6: Popular traditions leave students ungrounded.||13|
|7: Frameworks miss the meat.||14|
|8: Today’s issues framed in experience give traction.||14|
|9: Framework assumptions undermine.||14|
|10: Frameworks uses tradition to mold.||15|
|11: The weight of history.||15|
|Frameworks: Inquiry Arc of vague questions||15|
|Fogging out over compelling questions||15|
|Frameworks: Themes don’t unify||16|
|Themes are a programmed distraction.||16|
|2. Time, Continuity, and Change||17|
|3. People, Places, and Environments||17|
|4. Individual Development and Identity||18|
|5. Individuals, Groups, and Institutions||18|
|6. Power, Authority, and Governance||18|
|7. Production, Distribution, and Consumption||19|
|8. Science, Technology, and Society||19|
|9. Global Connections||20|
|10. Civic Ideals And Practices||20|
|Frameworks: Key ideas and understandings are not compelling||20|
|Concepts may not be principles or virtues.||20|
|Democracy isn’t a principle.||21|
|Frameworks: Content Specifications misdirect||22|
|Implementations arrived in full bloom.||22|
|Implementations are the point of the sword.||22|
|ELA: Grade 2 samples misrepresent democracy.||22|
|ELA: 6-12 Grade samples are non–evidence-based.||23|
|Frameworks: Social studies practices||26|
|Practices don’t make perfect.||26|
|Participation can be manipulated||26|
|Economic systems aren’t a practice||26|
|Frameworks: Reviewing conclusions||27|
|Integration of Common Core Standards is distracting.||27|
|The frameworks are judgmental.||27|
|The frameworks confuse.||27|
|Complexity complicates matters.||27|
|The frameworks exclude.||28|
|Frameworks have been poorly vetted.||28|
|Who chose implementation content?||28|
|Frameworks serve particular interests.||29|
|Who stands to benefit from the proposed social studies frameworks?||29|
|Common Core war is misdirected.||30|
|The Social Studies name gets in the way.||30|
|Knowledge, patterns, and process.||31|
|Social studies frameworks are too heavy to survive.||33|
Individuals & Society: Self–interest
|Where to find education||35|
|Only one question matters||38|
|Minimums of society||39|
|Experience fosters respect and responsibility||39|
|Individuals & Society: Why society||40|
|Individuals create society.||40|
|Individuals create ethics.||40|
|Understanding creates its own traction.||41|
|Simple wisdoms are scalable.||42|
|Concentric circles of individuals, journalism, and society.||42|
|Morality in society.||43|
|Power threatens society.||45|
|Individuals & Society: Generating traction||45|
|Discover that you matter.||45|
|You in the universe||46|
|Self–interest leads to a character-centered life||48|
|Dynamic process tools||50|
|Metaphors from experience motivate.||51|
|Fixed rules are incomplete||51|
|Skills to weigh the quality of ideas.||51|
Individuals & Society: Where character comes from
|Ethics is a creation of thought.||52|
|Morals are for personal protection.||52|
|Ethical participation is by choice||52|
|Character development follows from education.||53|
|Approaches to morality.||53|
|Virtues change over time.||54|
|Validation is everyone’s task.||55|
|Individuals & Society: Approaches to character||56|
|How to teach character is an old problem.||56|
|Teaching vocabulary doesn’t teach character.||57|
|Emulation doesn’t build character.||58|
|Teaching character requires a better method.||59|
|Character requires developing society.||59|
|Individuals & Society: Conclusion||60|
|Governance has failed us in the past.||60|
|Ethics did not mature in the 20th century.||61|
|What matters has been distilled out of education.||61|
|In summary: Alone and with hope||62|
|Making your own hope.||62|
|Wrapping up Common Core frameworks||65|
|The emperor’s new clothes||65|
|Improving the Common Core model lessons||67|
|Grade relevant opportunities||67|
|Integrating simple wisdoms into subjects.||69|
|Global Studies Regents Exam, August 2010||73|
Elementary school used to teach about ancient Greece:
Rowing, marching, singing — each required practiced loyalty from fellow citizens. An oar out of sync pulls a trireme off course. A soldier’s shield pulled too close opens a chink in the row of armor. An off-tempo note distracts attention from the play’s storyline. Such life skills were virtues that Greeks were taught.
New generations revalidate virtues according to recent life experience.
Today, teachers teaching teachers spent little time validating what students ought to learn. In the belly of the present–day educational trireme educators have been pulling oars in sync because that is how they were trained and that is what they are told.
Occasionally some poor fool sticks his head out of the hatch, looks around, and yells down into the ship’s hold, “Hey! Do any of you realize where this thing is headed?”
The Social Studies frameworks for Common Core reinforce that the sin of Common Core is that much of what is objectionable is not Common Core.
The Standards themselves do focus attention on the need for techniques, content, and even assessments to overcome the questionable quality of some teachers interspersed amongst the excellent ones — those that damage students and that local administrators either had not mentored to success or drummed out of the classroom.
The Social Studies frameworks revealed that others used the mantle of Common Core as cover to take advantage of a public interested in quality education. Using that cover, they inserted material quite different from that responsible for generations of diverse individuals and unparalleled American success. They called all the content they inserted “Common Core” even when it was neither common nor core.
Most state and local educators and officials were not tuned to see the social agenda or what it was designed to accomplish. Identifying those who worked to color educational standards and mapping their efforts is beyond the scope of this paper and is documented elsewhere.1
Parallel to the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts (ELA) and for Mathematics was an effort to establish an equivalent social studies standards. The National Council for the Social Studies released their effort called College, Career and Civic Life Framework for Social Studies State Standards2 and known as the C3 Framework. State frameworks were derived from it.
This paper presents patterns that reveal the social studies frameworks, for all their complexity, are unfocused and shallow. As magicians distract with subterfuge, frameworks intricacy is an effort to insinuate, obscure, and re-label schooling to become something that voters would not countenance or ever approve. Armed with insight, readers may make their own judgments.
Other branches of Common Core have been co-opted. It just hasn’t been noticed, probably because narrow teaching expertise, makes it less likely patterns would be recognized.
Before examining the frameworks in detail, let’s establish context. Peeling away the complexity of the Common Cores, success in the classroom depends upon:
Instead, administration has become preoccupied with how best to teach students operational skills. Others in history have tried that as the main focus of teacher training. Ancient Romans schooled their children with operational skills so they would become good citizens who spoke well. That schooling didn’t prevent Romans from losing their republic. Not all change is bad. In 399 BC, the trial of Socrates forced the question, “Does an education belong to the State or to the individual?” In the late 700s, Alcuin instituted grammar, logic, and rhetoric for Charlemagne. In the 1200s, the works of Aristotle were recovered helping to reclaim schooling from medieval scholastics.
The goal of this paper is to use the opportunity Common Core has presented to affirm the engagement of teachers with students individually and positively, and to propose content that gives traction because it registers individual self-interest.
The first section suggests frameworks proposals may be popular, but they are inadequate and misdirected. The second section suggests how to do better. An individual-based education nudges students to recognize what matters in such a way that it arms them to defend against even those who would teach them. Students learn to deduce for themselves behavior that is positive, instructive, and constructive. The word for that behavior is virtuous.
The frameworks approach might have been more obvious had society not traditionally often been confused with culture. Separate the two and society’s simple elegance becomes clear. That insight sells to others the personal advantage society offers. The insight generates the courage to defend society against those who, resigned by their actions to living the law of the jungle, would destroy it.
Focusing on culture is like looking at a photograph absent the depth of field to see society in the background:
Focused on foreground activities alone, People miss the value of society they actually create for their own self-interest. Not conscious of the background, people overlook that individuals, journalism, and society are like interrelated concentric circles.
Subjects currently taught offer fascinating detail, but don’t convey the lessons that help students mature and integrate into society. Discrete subjects were developed the middle ages. As mentioned above, Charlemagne appointed a monk named Alcuin to establish a sweeping educational system for both kings and commoners. The system taught students to think using the Trivium. After that, they practiced thinking on subjects. Now we teach subjects and hope students learn to think.
Subjects are not enough. Suppose you want to drive a car:
The car you need to learn to drive is you. Self–interest generates traction in school. Today officials are less interested in self–interest than in molding students to be “college and career ready.” Officials determined that “college and career ready” is the students’ interest regardless whether students and parents find that to be a students’ best interest.
College teaching programs and district professional development spend considerable time teaching teachers how to teach. Little time is spent validating content. Teachers enter the classroom told by authorities what students will learn. What or why it should be taught is not necessarily part of teacher expertise. Textbooks and teaching materials provide content vetted by highly credentialed “expert” mandarins.
Methods and content need to improve, but the new social studies frameworks impose well-ordered and disturbing complexity. Underneath concepts well worth practicing are levels of the social studies framework that will be examined for concerns they cause:
Common Core social studies frameworks and the parallel intrusion into English Language Arts (ELA) implementations have educators trying to turn students into good citizens by every means except familiarizing them with the continuum of history and how America emerged from it.
Frameworks designers appear to have lost confidence in what experience has to teach. They dismiss the founders’ advantage. Losing the value of experience examined makes the same mistakes previous “forward-thinking” educators made. Charles Dickens captured the problem in his 1854 book Hard Times that describes attempts to rigidly control education according to the best technical understandings of the day. In 1885, Daniel Owen wrote Rhys Lewis in Welsh to reclaim heritage from the mechanistic hand of British central government.
We have reason to be proud of humanity, proud of America, and proud of ourselves as individuals. At the very least, education should make that clear. Let’s summarize frameworks concerns, review them in detail, and offer a more useful alternative.
Coasting on contemporary feelings as if they were scholarship, proposed social studies frameworks presume that if “Enduring Understandings” and “Key Ideas” are popular, they must be important. That makes no sense. Absent scholarship that conveys why something matters, classroom experience becomes a charade.
For example, the C3 Framework proposes to tease out a formless “Key Idea” using a sample question it considers compelling: “How will an increase in the minimum wage affect local job opportunities for teens?”3 That is tedious, pedantic, and fog–inducing.
A simpler approach, offered by Economist Mark J. Perry posted on his blog, Carpe Diem, presents a Venn diagram of overlapping circles that induces strong traction students can use regarding minimum wage.4
In the Venn diagram:
Perry’s minimum wage lesson is teachable in different ways:
The first point is verifiable through economic research and the second adds useful patterns that reinforce personal experience. Patterns help one master the essential benefit of humility. Recoginizing one’s mental map of reality might be mistaken leads to doubt that fuels a persistent quest to learn. It leads to respect for others similarly aware who recognize the benefit of cooperating to understand things more accurately. Later discussions will help explain the importance why.
That NCSS sample question was generated at the behest of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) who parented creation of the social studies frameworks. They took a cliché that sounded good and presumed they had stumbled upon a fact: “Questioning is the key to student learning.”5 As the CCSSO explained, “Students will develop questions as they investigate societal issues, trends and events.”6
To expect students to develop questions from thin air is unreasonable. More likely the case is that, “Learning is the key to student questioning.” That didn’t stop the CCSSO from dictating questions to be the heart of their curricular guidelines. Their frameworks follow the structure:
Darned few questions really motivate people, and those tend to reflect profoundly individual concerns:
The job of education is to help students reach for mastery of what is worth knowing and why, embrace a process of continuous reflection, and tie it all together without dogma or conviction. One need not read completely the NCSS report either in the original “College, Career, and Civics” (C3) Framework or the numerous state-sponsored derivatives (We examine New York State’s framework) to see the many ways they miss the mark.
The Social Studies frameworks are yet another grand educational scheme designed by committee and built to fail:
The frameworks strive for the abstract but achieve the abstruse. Their processes are academic and although they drill some useful tools, they don’t offer the underlying dynamic process concepts that, once discovered, lead one to create society, value, and defend it.
Dynamic process concepts, once understood, lead to the characteristics that help make people successful as individuals and active positive participants with others in society that together they create.
A 2008 survey on the disparate nature of the way social studies was taught across the 50 states led the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) to create the Common Core Initiative.
In 2010, work was commissioned by the Social Studies Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction (SSACI) collaborative of CCSSO to create the Common Core State Standards.
In 2012, CCSSO asserted the premise that questioning is the key to learning. Their vision statement described the heart of the proposed C3 Social Studies Framework to be an “Inquiry Arc” consisting of dimensions “1) developing questions and planning investigations; 2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; 3) gathering, evaluating, and using evidence; and 4) working collaboratively and communicating conclusions”
When the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts (ELA) and Math were released, the CCSSO dropped plans to replicate the exercise for Social Studies. That is when the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) stepped in.
In 2013, The NCSS and a plethora of other contributing associations released The College, Career & Civic Life Framework For Social Studies State Standards. (C3 Framework)
The C3 Framework integrated and extended ELA Common Core State Standards in social studies standards.
The C3 Framework proposed that state standards identify the knowledge and skills students need to know and be able to do — suggesting “purposes worth caring about, processes worth engaging in, and knowledge worth knowing”8 be organized as:
Lastly, the NCSS advocated that the civic mission of social studies promote civic action.
To consider “big ideas” or “enduring understandings” the C3 Framework established ten “themes” for social studies discussion. They proposed, more than content knowledge, to develop skill sets and a disposition for critical thinkers.
Like other states following the C3 Framework, New York State produced a field guide, an introduction, and grade-specific social studies frameworks that followed Inquiry Arcs, Unifying Themes, Common Core Literacy Skills and Social Studies practices, Key Ideas and Conceptual Understandings presumed to be principles, and, finally, Content Specifications.
The NYS Social Studies Framework Introduction established standards for:
New York also emphasized Instructional Shifts in its framework:
The NYS K-12 Social Studies Field Guide introduces “various Social Studies practices” that are not part of the C3 Framework structure:
The NYS K–8 Social Studies Framework revised and expanded those Social studies practices:
NYS massaged the ten C3 Framework Themes but essentially follows them in a nominally chronological approach to social studies according to this schedule:
The NYS Framework also lists Key Ideas tagged with the applicable themes, then Conceptual understandings, followed by Content Specifications. This is followed by rubrics, organized by social studies practice, with columns selecting grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12.
Details of content were left to commercial textbook and program implementers. New York State Education Department posted sample lessons from different vendors at their EngageNY.com website.
It is in the NYS Frameworks itself that the heavy overlay of Common Core Literacy Standards becomes the tail that wags the dog.
A more detailed examination of concerns follows social studies frameworks sections:
If the summary has raised sufficient concerns about the frameworks, skip the detailed examination and summary and page on ahead to the chapters on Individuals & Society for a refreshing look on validating background for society.
Educating Stability Table of Contents
Next chapter: Educating Stability: Social Studies Frameworks