New Virginia History and Social Studies standards

[Anonymous]

The new standards are released. This is a 66 page document and encompasses both the first and second versions that were rejected. I'd like to hear what others, especially SS teachers think of it.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/Home/Components/News/News/256/227

[Anonymous]

As a middle school history teacher taking a first pass (and focusing on middle school standards), I'm not at all impressed.

Here are some of the problems that immediately jump out to me as glaring:

Latino/Hispanic American history get VERY little attention. For example, Cesar Chavez is only mentioned once, in the second grade standards. I teach many Latino students, and there's nothing about how US Cold War interventions in Central American contributed to many of my students' families coming to our community. The closest we get is USII.7 d. "examining the role of the United States in defending freedom during the Cold War, including but not limited to the Berlin Airlift, Korea and Vietnam, the roles of John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe;"

There is not a single explicit mention of class conflict for middle school, though there are oblique references in the high school standards.

"Westward Expansion" standards make it seem like it's something that happened to Indigenous people, as if they had no agency.

USII.1 The student will apply history and social science skills to examine westward expansion after
the mid-19th century by
a. explaining how technology allowed settlers to adapt to the physical features and climate of the West;
b. identifying the motivations for westward expansion;
c. examine the impact of policies, legislation, and treaties associated with growth of the nation; and
d. explaining the effect that the growth of the United States had on Indigenous Peoples.

While I understand the Governor has a political aversion to organized labor and the left, it's downright strange that the middle school standards only mention unions/labor once, in reference to the rise of public sector unions in the 1960s and 1970s. Unions are complex, but many (over 1000 documented) Americans have died in intense labor conflicts, and my students have been able to have nuanced discussion of some of those episodes.

The middle school standards on Industrialization make it seem like free market capitalism was great for everyone at the time. What of the women who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire?
USII.5 a. "explaining how capitalism and free markets helped foster developments in factory and labor productivity, transportation, communication, and rural electrification changed American life and standard of living;"
Whether the Governor likes it or not, unions played a significant role in addressing the problems with unregulated industrialism. There's no Carnegie or Rockefeller either, and students get really into comparing them to today's "Captains of Industry"/"Robber Barons" and making their own conclusions about who or what is worthy of celebration or condemnation.

The "Progressive Movement" is only mentioned once, in the 11th grade curriculum. Middle school standards mention only Prohibition and the Women's Suffrage Movement (USII.5 d).

I could go on. It's an improvement over version 2, but it still needs serious work.

[Anonymous]

Virginia you elected Youngkin idiots bye good schools hello padding Youngkin's pockets woo hoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virginia you elected Youngkin idiots bye good schools hello padding Youngkin's pockets woo hoo

Please elaborate. What did you think of the standards?

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the detailed analysis, 16:22. Were the current standards very different?

[Anonymous]

Virginia has the lowest standards in the country in math and reading. Assume it's the same for history and social studies.

[Anonymous]

Um, okayyyy…

[Anonymous]

As a world history II teacher, I like these standards. There is less emphasis on European history (though still Euro-centered) and it requires much more learning of Asian, Indian, and African history

[Anonymous]

Fourth grade VA Studies teacher here. According to the summaries I’ve had a chance to read so far, it looks like they backtracked on a lot of the stupidity from draft #2 and restored most of draft #1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fourth grade VA Studies teacher here. According to the summaries I’ve had a chance to read so far, it looks like they backtracked on a lot of the stupidity from draft #2 and restored most of draft #1.

I teach 4th grade Virginia Studies, too. It looks similar to what we've been teaching. They've added a few names to the mix, some that I'm not familiar with (but will become so).

[Anonymous]

I teach 6th grade US I. For the most part, these standards do not look that different from the old standards. However, these are written more broadly than before, and I need to see the full framework to know exactly what has been included and removed.

A few thoughts on the current document:

Geography: So are we doing the 8 geographic regions and 7 major rivers, or is it a more general view of geography? While I'm not opposed to learning all the states capitals, I'm not sure that is the best use of limited instructional time. As it is now, my school usually cuts the geography unit significantly anyway in order to make room for projects like National History Day.

Early Cultures of North America: I notice the land bridge theory is not mentioned, which I'm fine with, since recent evidence has thrown that into question anyway. But I hope there is something about how the first humans got to North America. I presume so, since Cactus Hill still made the cut. I see the language has shifted from "American Indians" to "Indigenous Peoples." Are we still doing the 5 nations (Iroquois, Lakota, Pueblo, Kwakiutl, and Inuit), or is it a broader and more general view of how people lived? For European colonization, the Dutch were added, which is fine. It also seems like the slave trade is discussed earlier in the curriculum than it was before; seems like it is part of the exploration unit as opposed to colonies. They've also added the specific details about where the first Africans arrived.

Colonial America and the American Revolution: I don't see anything about the early colonies specifically in this document. I can't imagine that they would have cut Jamestown out of the curriculum, so I'm assuming it will be included in the details later. Same goes for Roanoke and Plymouth, and maybe some of the other colonies, like Pennsylvania. Otherwise that seems like a big omission. When it comes to the Revolution, there is more emphasis on the ideas behind the Revolution and how they fit into the context of history. That was probably needed, though I worry some of it will go over the heads of many 11-year-olds and will require a lot of explanation. Everything in these standards is written very vaguely, though. Like, which specific "causes, course, and consequences of key events and battles of the era" are we supposed to cover? This is why I need to see the full framework.

A New Nation and its Expansion: The standards around the Constitution look pretty much the same, and in any event, the kids will get all that info again in civics and government in later years. Westward expansion also looks pretty similar, with perhaps more emphasis on the War of 1812 and interactions between settlers/US government and indigenous people. However, the standard for abolition and suffrage is so vague that it is hard to tell if anything was added or cut. Like, are we still covering people like Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and William Lloyd Garrison? What about the Seneca Falls Convention? I see that Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman are now in the Civil War unit.

Civil War: I'm glad to see that "states' rights" has been completely removed as a cause of the war, and that the emphasis is on slavery. However, there doesn't seem to be much on the political debates and failed compromises over slavery that lead to the Civil War. A few people and have been added to the curriculum here, but overall this looks pretty much the same. Again, though, the specifics are lacking.

The 2020 update added several African Americans to the curriculum, some of whom appear to have been removed. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, some of the people added were not essential to the overall story we were trying to tell. On the other hand, I teach a lot of minority students, and I think it was important for them to see themselves in American history.

Overall, I am fine with these standards, but I am very curious to see the framework in detail. My biggest question, though, is whether US I must be taught in 5th grade. For a long time districts have been allowed to teach it in either 5th or 6th grade, and my district teaches it in 6th. If it must be taught in 5th, then I will have to learn a whole new curriculum, and I'm not excited about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a middle school history teacher taking a first pass (and focusing on middle school standards), I'm not at all impressed.

Here are some of the problems that immediately jump out to me as glaring:

Latino/Hispanic American history get VERY little attention. For example, Cesar Chavez is only mentioned once, in the second grade standards. I teach many Latino students, and there's nothing about how US Cold War interventions in Central American contributed to many of my students' families coming to our community. The closest we get is USII.7 d. "examining the role of the United States in defending freedom during the Cold War, including but not limited to the Berlin Airlift, Korea and Vietnam, the roles of John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe;"

There is not a single explicit mention of class conflict for middle school, though there are oblique references in the high school standards.

"Westward Expansion" standards make it seem like it's something that happened to Indigenous people, as if they had no agency.

USII.1 The student will apply history and social science skills to examine westward expansion after
the mid-19th century by
a. explaining how technology allowed settlers to adapt to the physical features and climate of the West;
b. identifying the motivations for westward expansion;
c. examine the impact of policies, legislation, and treaties associated with growth of the nation; and
d. explaining the effect that the growth of the United States had on Indigenous Peoples.

While I understand the Governor has a political aversion to organized labor and the left, it's downright strange that the middle school standards only mention unions/labor once, in reference to the rise of public sector unions in the 1960s and 1970s. Unions are complex, but many (over 1000 documented) Americans have died in intense labor conflicts, and my students have been able to have nuanced discussion of some of those episodes.

The middle school standards on Industrialization make it seem like free market capitalism was great for everyone at the time. What of the women who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire?
USII.5 a. "explaining how capitalism and free markets helped foster developments in factory and labor productivity, transportation, communication, and rural electrification changed American life and standard of living;"
Whether the Governor likes it or not, unions played a significant role in addressing the problems with unregulated industrialism. There's no Carnegie or Rockefeller either, and students get really into comparing them to today's "Captains of Industry"/"Robber Barons" and making their own conclusions about who or what is worthy of celebration or condemnation.

The "Progressive Movement" is only mentioned once, in the 11th grade curriculum. Middle school standards mention only Prohibition and the Women's Suffrage Movement (USII.5 d).

I could go on. It's an improvement over version 2, but it still needs serious work.

Ugh. The Howard Zinn view of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a middle school history teacher taking a first pass (and focusing on middle school standards), I'm not at all impressed.

Here are some of the problems that immediately jump out to me as glaring:

Latino/Hispanic American history get VERY little attention. For example, Cesar Chavez is only mentioned once, in the second grade standards. I teach many Latino students, and there's nothing about how US Cold War interventions in Central American contributed to many of my students' families coming to our community. The closest we get is USII.7 d. "examining the role of the United States in defending freedom during the Cold War, including but not limited to the Berlin Airlift, Korea and Vietnam, the roles of John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe;"

There is not a single explicit mention of class conflict for middle school, though there are oblique references in the high school standards.

"Westward Expansion" standards make it seem like it's something that happened to Indigenous people, as if they had no agency.

USII.1 The student will apply history and social science skills to examine westward expansion after
the mid-19th century by
a. explaining how technology allowed settlers to adapt to the physical features and climate of the West;
b. identifying the motivations for westward expansion;
c. examine the impact of policies, legislation, and treaties associated with growth of the nation; and
d. explaining the effect that the growth of the United States had on Indigenous Peoples.

While I understand the Governor has a political aversion to organized labor and the left, it's downright strange that the middle school standards only mention unions/labor once, in reference to the rise of public sector unions in the 1960s and 1970s. Unions are complex, but many (over 1000 documented) Americans have died in intense labor conflicts, and my students have been able to have nuanced discussion of some of those episodes.

The middle school standards on Industrialization make it seem like free market capitalism was great for everyone at the time. What of the women who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire?
USII.5 a. "explaining how capitalism and free markets helped foster developments in factory and labor productivity, transportation, communication, and rural electrification changed American life and standard of living;"
Whether the Governor likes it or not, unions played a significant role in addressing the problems with unregulated industrialism. There's no Carnegie or Rockefeller either, and students get really into comparing them to today's "Captains of Industry"/"Robber Barons" and making their own conclusions about who or what is worthy of celebration or condemnation.

The "Progressive Movement" is only mentioned once, in the 11th grade curriculum. Middle school standards mention only Prohibition and the Women's Suffrage Movement (USII.5 d).

I could go on. It's an improvement over version 2, but it still needs serious work.

Ugh. The Howard Zinn view of history.

It seems like these third standards are mostly a rollback to the first standards with a little bit of the second standards. TBH, I'd like to see a fourth standards with more of the second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach 6th grade US I. For the most part, these standards do not look that different from the old standards. However, these are written more broadly than before, and I need to see the full framework to know exactly what has been included and removed.

A few thoughts on the current document:

Geography: So are we doing the 8 geographic regions and 7 major rivers, or is it a more general view of geography? While I'm not opposed to learning all the states capitals, I'm not sure that is the best use of limited instructional time. As it is now, my school usually cuts the geography unit significantly anyway in order to make room for projects like National History Day.

Early Cultures of North America: I notice the land bridge theory is not mentioned, which I'm fine with, since recent evidence has thrown that into question anyway. But I hope there is something about how the first humans got to North America. I presume so, since Cactus Hill still made the cut. I see the language has shifted from "American Indians" to "Indigenous Peoples." Are we still doing the 5 nations (Iroquois, Lakota, Pueblo, Kwakiutl, and Inuit), or is it a broader and more general view of how people lived? For European colonization, the Dutch were added, which is fine. It also seems like the slave trade is discussed earlier in the curriculum than it was before; seems like it is part of the exploration unit as opposed to colonies. They've also added the specific details about where the first Africans arrived.

Colonial America and the American Revolution: I don't see anything about the early colonies specifically in this document. I can't imagine that they would have cut Jamestown out of the curriculum, so I'm assuming it will be included in the details later. Same goes for Roanoke and Plymouth, and maybe some of the other colonies, like Pennsylvania. Otherwise that seems like a big omission. When it comes to the Revolution, there is more emphasis on the ideas behind the Revolution and how they fit into the context of history. That was probably needed, though I worry some of it will go over the heads of many 11-year-olds and will require a lot of explanation. Everything in these standards is written very vaguely, though. Like, which specific "causes, course, and consequences of key events and battles of the era" are we supposed to cover? This is why I need to see the full framework.

A New Nation and its Expansion: The standards around the Constitution look pretty much the same, and in any event, the kids will get all that info again in civics and government in later years. Westward expansion also looks pretty similar, with perhaps more emphasis on the War of 1812 and interactions between settlers/US government and indigenous people. However, the standard for abolition and suffrage is so vague that it is hard to tell if anything was added or cut. Like, are we still covering people like Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and William Lloyd Garrison? What about the Seneca Falls Convention? I see that Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman are now in the Civil War unit.

Civil War: I'm glad to see that "states' rights" has been completely removed as a cause of the war, and that the emphasis is on slavery. However, there doesn't seem to be much on the political debates and failed compromises over slavery that lead to the Civil War. A few people and have been added to the curriculum here, but overall this looks pretty much the same. Again, though, the specifics are lacking.

The 2020 update added several African Americans to the curriculum, some of whom appear to have been removed. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, some of the people added were not essential to the overall story we were trying to tell. On the other hand, I teach a lot of minority students, and I think it was important for them to see themselves in American history.

Overall, I am fine with these standards, but I am very curious to see the framework in detail. My biggest question, though, is whether US I must be taught in 5th grade. For a long time districts have been allowed to teach it in either 5th or 6th grade, and my district teaches it in 6th. If it must be taught in 5th, then I will have to learn a whole new curriculum, and I'm not excited about that.

I teach 6th too and am also curious if 5th will teach US History 1. I will say, if that is the case, 5th will be an incredibly hard grade to teach with having the Science SOL. 5th grade spends way more time on Science than SS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach 6th grade US I. For the most part, these standards do not look that different from the old standards. However, these are written more broadly than before, and I need to see the full framework to know exactly what has been included and removed.

A few thoughts on the current document:

Geography: So are we doing the 8 geographic regions and 7 major rivers, or is it a more general view of geography? While I'm not opposed to learning all the states capitals, I'm not sure that is the best use of limited instructional time. As it is now, my school usually cuts the geography unit significantly anyway in order to make room for projects like National History Day.

Early Cultures of North America: I notice the land bridge theory is not mentioned, which I'm fine with, since recent evidence has thrown that into question anyway. But I hope there is something about how the first humans got to North America. I presume so, since Cactus Hill still made the cut. I see the language has shifted from "American Indians" to "Indigenous Peoples." Are we still doing the 5 nations (Iroquois, Lakota, Pueblo, Kwakiutl, and Inuit), or is it a broader and more general view of how people lived? For European colonization, the Dutch were added, which is fine. It also seems like the slave trade is discussed earlier in the curriculum than it was before; seems like it is part of the exploration unit as opposed to colonies. They've also added the specific details about where the first Africans arrived.

Colonial America and the American Revolution: I don't see anything about the early colonies specifically in this document. I can't imagine that they would have cut Jamestown out of the curriculum, so I'm assuming it will be included in the details later. Same goes for Roanoke and Plymouth, and maybe some of the other colonies, like Pennsylvania. Otherwise that seems like a big omission. When it comes to the Revolution, there is more emphasis on the ideas behind the Revolution and how they fit into the context of history. That was probably needed, though I worry some of it will go over the heads of many 11-year-olds and will require a lot of explanation. Everything in these standards is written very vaguely, though. Like, which specific "causes, course, and consequences of key events and battles of the era" are we supposed to cover? This is why I need to see the full framework.

A New Nation and its Expansion: The standards around the Constitution look pretty much the same, and in any event, the kids will get all that info again in civics and government in later years. Westward expansion also looks pretty similar, with perhaps more emphasis on the War of 1812 and interactions between settlers/US government and indigenous people. However, the standard for abolition and suffrage is so vague that it is hard to tell if anything was added or cut. Like, are we still covering people like Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and William Lloyd Garrison? What about the Seneca Falls Convention? I see that Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman are now in the Civil War unit.

Civil War: I'm glad to see that "states' rights" has been completely removed as a cause of the war, and that the emphasis is on slavery. However, there doesn't seem to be much on the political debates and failed compromises over slavery that lead to the Civil War. A few people and have been added to the curriculum here, but overall this looks pretty much the same. Again, though, the specifics are lacking.

The 2020 update added several African Americans to the curriculum, some of whom appear to have been removed. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, some of the people added were not essential to the overall story we were trying to tell. On the other hand, I teach a lot of minority students, and I think it was important for them to see themselves in American history.

Overall, I am fine with these standards, but I am very curious to see the framework in detail. My biggest question, though, is whether US I must be taught in 5th grade. For a long time districts have been allowed to teach it in either 5th or 6th grade, and my district teaches it in 6th. If it must be taught in 5th, then I will have to learn a whole new curriculum, and I'm not excited about that.

😂🙄