Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is much younger but I have wondered this myself. I'm as progressive as they come politically, but I do feel like schools basically steer clear if a lot of history and civics these days because it's "too complex" to communicate to young kids.

So when I was in elementary school, we learned about a lot of this stuff, though in a simplistic, inherently biased way. We learned about colonialism but mostly only from the perspective of colonists, for instance. I think now what happens is that teaching with more nuance and a broader perspective takes more time, and schools are always pressed for time when it comes to curriculum. Science and social studies are what get skipped in elementary because they aren't tested, and schools and teachers are heavily incentivized to teach to the tests.

So I think we need two things:

1) Some kind of agreement as to what "the basics" are when it comes to social studies and physics, so that schools can teach them without running into this ethical morass where teaching anything means spending huge amounts of time providing additional context and perspectives; and

2) A way to incentivize schools to prioritize SS/civics in the elementary and middle school grades, when currently all the incentives lie in spending more time on reading and math (fyi, writing also suffers from this problem because it's harder to test writing levels so it gets de-emphasized and kids arrive in MS reading well but writing poorly).

Progressive is not the issue

Bible thumping idiots trying to take over our schools are

Oh sure. These “idiots” are all over DCPS. Sorry but this failure is on you.

OP this is yet another reason my kids are in private schools. Just saying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'm as progressive as they come politically, but I do feel like schools basically steer clear if a lot of history and civics these days because it's "too complex" to communicate to young kids.

I just do not understand what "progressive" has to do with a bunch of 12 year olds not having a grasp of what the Renaissance was or why the explorers went out sailing in the first place. Implying that progressivism means that we have to skip over the most basic, major events of human history is not exactly making me want to be a progressive anymore.

I am the PP and I'm on your side. But next PP also make a good point (about "bible thumpers"). The criticisms come from both angles and the result is that educators get caught in the crosshairs and don't want to deal with it. For instance, if you go to teach the Renaissance, you will be accuse of Eurocentrism and too much focus on white men and European culture. You will be asked to spend as much or more time on the same period in Africa or Asia or the Americas. The attitude is that if you cannot teach all of history from all perspectives than whatever you pick and choose to teach should not be overly focused on white Europeans. This puts people in a bind because while there is some truth to this criticism, it's also a fact that our current culture, language, and political structures are directly derived from European political and cultural movements.

But likewise if you want to teach, say, the Spanish Inquisition or the Protestant Revolution, you risk pissing off religious groups who will argue that any criticism of the Catholics or the Protestants is prejudicial and ostracizing for kids. If you try to teach history of non-European peoples which includes discussion of non-Christian belief systems, you will be accused of indoctrination and violating religious freedom, which of course some extremists view as the freedom to never have to think or consider a religious history different from their own.

And on and on. No matter what you teach, people get mad at you for not having taught something else, or for exposing kids to ideas they find scary. It sucks.

This is all very true, sadly. If you really care about educating your kids on the historical front, you really are on your home. The good news: you’ll do a much better job anyway.

Check out the Story of the World Series, Pandia Press, Usborne books on historical events and person. I’ve been doing this with my kids since 1st grade (now uppper elem) with great results. You can’t rely on most schools to treat these subjects properly as most adults are clueless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I'm as progressive as they come politically, but I do feel like schools basically steer clear if a lot of history and civics these days because it's "too complex" to communicate to young kids.

I just do not understand what "progressive" has to do with a bunch of 12 year olds not having a grasp of what the Renaissance was or why the explorers went out sailing in the first place. Implying that progressivism means that we have to skip over the most basic, major events of human history is not exactly making me want to be a progressive anymore.

I am the PP and I'm on your side. But next PP also make a good point (about "bible thumpers"). The criticisms come from both angles and the result is that educators get caught in the crosshairs and don't want to deal with it. For instance, if you go to teach the Renaissance, you will be accuse of Eurocentrism and too much focus on white men and European culture. You will be asked to spend as much or more time on the same period in Africa or Asia or the Americas. The attitude is that if you cannot teach all of history from all perspectives than whatever you pick and choose to teach should not be overly focused on white Europeans. This puts people in a bind because while there is some truth to this criticism, it's also a fact that our current culture, language, and political structures are directly derived from European political and cultural movements.

But likewise if you want to teach, say, the Spanish Inquisition or the Protestant Revolution, you risk pissing off religious groups who will argue that any criticism of the Catholics or the Protestants is prejudicial and ostracizing for kids. If you try to teach history of non-European peoples which includes discussion of non-Christian belief systems, you will be accused of indoctrination and violating religious freedom, which of course some extremists view as the freedom to never have to think or consider a religious history different from their own.

And on and on. No matter what you teach, people get mad at you for not having taught something else, or for exposing kids to ideas they find scary. It sucks.

Anonymous wrote:My kid is much younger but I have wondered this myself. I'm as progressive as they come politically, but I do feel like schools basically steer clear if a lot of history and civics these days because it's "too complex" to communicate to young kids.

So when I was in elementary school, we learned about a lot of this stuff, though in a simplistic, inherently biased way. We learned about colonialism but mostly only from the perspective of colonists, for instance. I think now what happens is that teaching with more nuance and a broader perspective takes more time, and schools are always pressed for time when it comes to curriculum. Science and social studies are what get skipped in elementary because they aren't tested, and schools and teachers are heavily incentivized to teach to the tests.

So I think we need two things:

1) Some kind of agreement as to what "the basics" are when it comes to social studies and physics, so that schools can teach them without running into this ethical morass where teaching anything means spending huge amounts of time providing additional context and perspectives; and

2) A way to incentivize schools to prioritize SS/civics in the elementary and middle school grades, when currently all the incentives lie in spending more time on reading and math (fyi, writing also suffers from this problem because it's harder to test writing levels so it gets de-emphasized and kids arrive in MS reading well but writing poorly).

Progressive is not the issue

Bible thumping idiots trying to take over our schools are

Anonymous wrote: I'm as progressive as they come politically, but I do feel like schools basically steer clear if a lot of history and civics these days because it's "too complex" to communicate to young kids.

I just do not understand what "progressive" has to do with a bunch of 12 year olds not having a grasp of what the Renaissance was or why the explorers went out sailing in the first place. Implying that progressivism means that we have to skip over the most basic, major events of human history is not exactly making me want to be a progressive anymore.

Which middle school?

Anonymous wrote:I have a 6th grader in a DCPS middle school who knows about all of the things you referenced. Some from school, some from reading, some from family/friends conversations… not sure this is a DCPS problem so much as anecdotal evidence that you need to pay more attention to your kid and their activities?

Thank you for such a patronizing response, truly, very constructive. I pay a lot of attention to my kid and her activities (hence my growing concerns, resorting to home schooling her for social studies, and... this post), and I'd been wondering for a while why they don't seem to be discussing any of the most basic concepts of history and social studies. After reading about Gen Z and Gen Alpha's views on some events, I decided to start asking her point blank what they learned about it in school, only to find out that in fact, they simply do not appear to cover... anything. My child is a good student who is pretty diligent about her homework and getting good grades, I can't chalk it up to her simply being not that bright or horrendous parenting, as you so helpfully suggest.

Clearly you must have a better DCPS school than we do.

My kid is much younger but I have wondered this myself. I'm as progressive as they come politically, but I do feel like schools basically steer clear if a lot of history and civics these days because it's "too complex" to communicate to young kids.

So when I was in elementary school, we learned about a lot of this stuff, though in a simplistic, inherently biased way. We learned about colonialism but mostly only from the perspective of colonists, for instance. I think now what happens is that teaching with more nuance and a broader perspective takes more time, and schools are always pressed for time when it comes to curriculum. Science and social studies are what get skipped in elementary because they aren't tested, and schools and teachers are heavily incentivized to teach to the tests.

So I think we need two things:

1) Some kind of agreement as to what "the basics" are when it comes to social studies and physics, so that schools can teach them without running into this ethical morass where teaching anything means spending huge amounts of time providing additional context and perspectives; and

2) A way to incentivize schools to prioritize SS/civics in the elementary and middle school grades, when currently all the incentives lie in spending more time on reading and math (fyi, writing also suffers from this problem because it's harder to test writing levels so it gets de-emphasized and kids arrive in MS reading well but writing poorly).

I have a 6th grader in a DCPS middle school who knows about all of the things you referenced. Some from school, some from reading, some from family/friends conversations… not sure this is a DCPS problem so much as anecdotal evidence that you need to pay more attention to your kid and their activities?

The outline for DCPS social studies themes by grade can be found here: https://dcps.dc.gov/page/social-studies.

This article also does a good job of outlining the current standards and differences in the new standards that are being adopted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/02/12/dc-schools-new-social-studies-curriculum/

Wars and conflicts are generally introduced in later grades in the standards.

I have been extremely disappointed and dismayed by what appears to be a total lack of any social studies or civics education with DCPS.

I recently began asking my middle schooler what she thought about various historical events, only to learn that she did not know about WWII, the Great Depression, WWI, the Cold War, Vietnam War, or who the Iroquois and Sioux were. None of this has ever been covered. They did go over the Civil War and Revolution in elementary school, but she did not know which came first or when either took place or why. We have watched some movies and read some books about the Holocaust together, but she was somehow convinced that the Nazis were the Americans.

This is alarming. I question what has been taught in all this time by DCPS, where she has gone to school since kindergarten. I appreciate that there was disruption during the pandemic, and we moved to a new school for middle school, but there is no excuse for this kind of ignorance at this grade level. I question whether a child who is the product of this kind of education system is ready for high school, let alone college.

For all the talk we heard in elementary school about the importance of teaching our children to be critical thinkers and protect them from falling into disinformation campaigns and other propaganda, DCPS certainly seems intent on creating a generation of vulnerable ignorant citizens. I cannot think of any excuse or explanation for this kind of disservice, especially in a place like DC, where we literally have a front-row seat to global events as they happen.

I expressed my concerns to the principal, who took several days before acknowledging me and told me she would be sending it to the central office. It has now been a month, and no one has bothered contacting me. I am unsure of what to do or how to address this.

In the meantime, I bought several used middle school history textbooks and every night we have an extra social studies lesson at home. It is distressing that it has come to this, and even more disturbing when we consider all of the DCPS students whose families are unable to do the same for their kids.

Who would be the appropriate person to talk to about my concerns?