Commentary; Posted: 1/7/04

Social studies standards should promote active, challenging citizenship

Joe Nathan
Guest Columnist

How ironic! The latest draft of Minnesotaís proposed state social studies standards was produced after intense, lively, difficult debate and confrontation. But this draft, while a clear improvement over previous efforts, seems to promote a rather passive, quiet form of citizenship.

First graders are expected to ìdefine what it means to be a citizen in terms of loyalty, membership and self-government.î

Examples given are ìhard-work, generosity, self-reliance, love of America, gentleness, even-temper, friendliness.î Those ARE important values ó but so are things like thinking and questioning.

Itís the same approach in third grade, where students are expected to ìunderstand the importance of citizens having certain character traitsÖ.î Examples given include responsibility, courage, self-reliance, trustworthiness, accountability, generosity, honesty, courtesy, cooperation, patience, patriotism and self-restraint.î

In grades 9-12, students are expected to ìexplain the inherent rights and resulting responsibilities of citizenshipÖ(and) to describe activities of civic life.î

But examples offered do not cite protesting or questioning government policies. They do include things like obeying the laws, paying taxes, informed voting, participating in political campaigns, communicating with government officials, defending the nation, and serving in court.î

Opponents vigorously, passionately and persistently protested the now-departed Profile of Learning. Fortunately that was their right.

The latest draft of Minnesota graduation requirements includes numerous examples of people who battled for changes ó by protesting and using civil disobedience to obtain voting rights for women and minorities. They even used violence to sever this country from Great Britain.

But the current draft standards donít seem to praise or promote this type of activism as part of citizenship for todayís students. Itís an important omission.

Hereís a second concern about the draft: the amount of information students are required to study is huge, and in some cases, not critical. For example, does every high school student need to

ïìDescribe how the technological and managerial changes associated with the third agricultural revolution have impacted the regional patterns of crop and livestock production,î or

ïìExplain the internal spatial structure of cities in the United States,î or

ïMaster 47 benchmarks in economics, including things that economists debate intensely such as how ìmonetary policy influences employment, output inflation and interest ratesî

Iím sure that a geographer or economist can argue that these standards are important. But piling so much on teachers, schools and students makes it less likely that students will have time to do VERY important things, such as understand basic principles of democracy, examine different approaches governments use to regulate companies, and research/debate the wisest policy of taxation for the federal government and for states.

Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke deserves credit for listening to critics. The current draft represents a much more balanced, inclusive approach to history, government, economics and geography. This draft includes both information and analysis.

But I hope Minnesotaís legislators will recognize the strengths of this draft, and then make a few revisions. Active, challenging citizenship should be included. And some cuts should be made.

The writer directs the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. He can be reached at jnathan@hhh.umn.edu.

Top of Page