Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 10, 1995 TAG: 9505100008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN B. FLEMING
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Last year when the Virginia Department of Education began efforts to revise the current Standards of Learning, social-studies educators throughout the state were excited and hopeful that much-needed changes in the current SOLs would take place. The call for a more rigorous instructional program was also met with enthusiasm, and early drafts by broad-based, statewide committees showed promise for change.
Unfortunately, by the end of 1994, intervention by representatives from Gov. George Allen's Commission on Champion Schools caused a major shift of direction in the revision process. The Jan. 10, 1995, version was quite different from earlier work by statewide committees. When the January draft was distributed for statewide public hearing, the overwhelming response from teachers, administrators and parents was disagreement and disappointment, accompanied by recommendations that the document undergo a total overhaul.
What had not been expected was the escalation of what was originally to be a participatory and nonpolitical review of the curriculum into what The Washington Post has described in an editorial as "History Wars in Virginia." Since then, the controversy has moved onto the national scene with Lynne Cheney, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, joining the fray. In a Washington Post column, Cheney charged that education interest groups "go berserk" when something is proposed "that is sensible," referring to what she described as "George Allen's proposed standards."
The press has widely covered the struggle to date, but most of the coverage has been devoted to proposed changes for the elementary grades. What hasn't been given much coverage are the revisions for the overall social-studies program, grades K-12.
After careful analysis by several state and local groups, there is little doubt that the proposed social studies SOLs virtually eliminate all forms of critical thinking, research and writing skills. Group interaction and civic activities are also gone. An example is found in grade 12, where the current SOLs objective reads: "The student will participate in civic activities. Focus will be placed on such activities as voter registration and voting in simulated and/or real elections, communication with public officials, attendance at public meetings, and involvement in civic activities."
In the revised SOLs, all forms of such participation have been removed. Yet a national movement has long been under way to add civic participation as part of the social-studies program, as is now being done in Fairfax County and other localities.
Ironically, the claim by proponents of the revised SOLs that they bring new content rigor and basic facts into the curriculum, when closely examined, is not borne out. The amount of time devoted to history is increased, but other disciplines such as economics and geography are reduced in coverage. Geography is tacked onto history in the revisions, thus tossing out years of work and funding for the major curriculum effort in geography over the past decade.
The content priorities of the proposed SOLs include a heavy focus on ancient civilizations, grades one, two, five and nine. A second area of emphasis is the discovery, exploration and settlement of the New World in grades two, three, four, six and eleven.
By their fifth sailing with Christopher Columbus, students certainly should know this period. In contrast, the modern world, particularly the past 50 years, is given relatively little attention. The proposed standards find students studying ancient China and Africa, but not modern China and Africa. There seems a tone of disdain for anything "modern" in the document. Technology is given very little attention, including no mention of the use of technology for communication and research. One teacher at a recent meeting I attended commented that the new SOLs would result in rigor mortis for students, not rigor.
A detailed evaluation of the proposed SOLs by principals and teachers from seven school divisions in Southwestern Virginia revealed serious concerns. One principal was "appalled by many of the new objectives" and another described some as "ludicrous." A third stated, "Overall this is the poorest attempt to develop curriculum I have seen in 26 years in public education." A common concern of the teachers and principals alike was that the program lacked any content sequence and too often presented a disorganized hodgepodge of facts. They were not against the teaching of facts, but would like to teach them connected in some way to student interests and in some logical structure.
I also share the concerns raised at the public hearings about the proposed revisions. Several good changes can be found in the January document, but these are eclipsed by the bad. The current SOLs have many problems, but the proposed revisions in several ways actually worsen the situation. The revisions too often seem fragmented, unbalanced and at times to have resulted from a capricious selection of content. A very serious flaw is that there is no overall purpose identified for the program. The January document is like a headless horseman on a galloping horse with no idea where he is going.
Even now, staff at the Virginia Department of Education are scrambling to salvage something out of this thicket of confusion. Clearly all sides need to catch their breath and begin anew, as is now being done. A new task force is being established.
All the parties involved in this curriculum debate need to re-examine what it is we want our students to know, value and be able to do by the time they complete 13 years of public education. Citizens want to be assured that their tax dollars are well spent. What we don't need is name-calling and gamesmanship using our children as political pawns. There is no burning urgency to revise the social studies Standards of Learning. As Jefferson wisely said, "Delay is preferable to error."
Dan B. Fleming is professor emeritus of social-studies education at Virginia Tech.
by CNB