I could probably write a book on this topic, but I will try to briefly summarize my thoughts on the role of state standards and assessments in Social Studies education. Since 2006, I have worked at an educational software company and have worked on Social Studies projects for at least 20 different states. In this role, I have seen a wide range in not only the quality of standards but also the specificity that certain standards cover. Sometimes, we are left scratching our heads wondering who a specific person is or who really thought that this was really an appropriate standard for a particular grade level. So, what I have seen is that there is no clear consensus across this country regarding what should be taught and how it should be taught. Assessment is another issue. Some states do not have assessments for Social Studies. Other states require tests every year from 3rd through 8th grades plus additional tests in high school. Are these tests a good thing? I do not have an answer for that question, but some argue that without required tests for Social Studies does not get the instructional emphasis that it needs due to the pressure on the students to pass the Math and English Language Arts assessments that are required by No Child Left Behind. Here, I will share specific information about the state standards in several states and share my thoughts and observations.

Texas Georgia

     For an overview of U.S. History standards around the country, take a look at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011. According to their evaluation of state standards, 28 states received a grade of a D or and F, while only seven states received a grade of an A or A-.

Texas

     In 2009, the state of Texas began revising the Social Studies TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills). The revised standards went into effect in the 2011-2012 school year. The process for revising the standards was highly contentious and turned into a huge political battle. The debate over the standards was not only widely publicized throughout the state of Texas but was also picked up by the national and international press. I read numerous articles about the standards, and I have to say that the coverage by the press was quite poor. Basically, the gist of the argument that was being perpetuated throughout the press was that crazy conservatives in Texas were rewriting history and that since Texas was such a large purchaser of textbooks that publishing companies were going to rewrite history too and then that would affect students all across the country. One great source of information I relied on during this process was the TEKSWatch site published by the Center for History Teaching & Learning at the University of Texas El Paso History Department. This group did an excellent job gathering information about the standards and eagerly shared this information with others in an effort to make sure that people were well informed and were involved in the process.

     My two cents on this whole debacle...There were several members of the Texas State Board of Education who were staunchly conservative, and these people did not make enough of an effort to remain neutral, and their credibility was questioned as well. Some of the experts chosen to review the standards were also criticized for their lack of neutrality and credibility. One person who was sharply criticized was David Barton because of his conservative views and the fact that he was not a trained historian. When I read David Barton's analysis of the standards, I thought he made many excellent points, but many of his comments were taken out of context. Overall, he didn't like the fact that the standards were a laundry list of names and facts and that people on the list were important whereas people not on the list were not important. People in general just seemed to be missing the point that the standards themselves are rather flawed. Another point is that even if something weird/crazy/controversial makes it into the standards, publishing companies cannot write anything that is too overtly weird/crazy/controversial. One of the few excellent articles I read during this time period was "Texas Textbooks' National Influence Is a Myth" by Brian Thevenot published by The Texas Tribune. In the article, he states "If you want to get books approved by the state board — and sell as many as possible to both Hispanic liberals in El Paso as to social conservatives in Fort Worth — the path to success lies in avoiding irritating anyone. In other words, producing boring books." I totally agree with that statement. He makes another excellent point when he says "Most elementary and secondary texts are written by committees of a dozen or more writers, hired hands who don’t own their work and can’t object to any changes multiple publishing house editors make to appease whichever politicians or bureaucrats control the millions being spent. They are cooked quickly and to order, pressed together from hundreds of standards that reflect, in many ways, the lowest common denominator of thousands of opinions. They are, in short, the chicken nuggets of the literary world." I could go on and on, but I will stop.

Georgia

     I have to say that I agree with the Fordham Institute's analysis of Georgia's U.S. History standards. They are clearly written, give specific examples, and cover appropriate content. My observation of Social Studies education in Georgia: it is very focused on the test. So much so that we have received comments from multiple teachers along the lines of "the students don't need to know this because it's not in the GPS." Surely, this is not an attitude shared among all teachers in the state, but we have definitely seen more comments of this nature from teachers in Georgia than other states. One baffling comment was related to a question that we had in which we asked the students to identify Lake Michigan on a map. Simple enough, right? Here is the standard for 4th Grade "Locate major physical features of the United States; include the Atlantic Coastal Plain, Great Plains, Continental Divide, the Great Basin, Death Valley, Gulf of Mexico, St. Lawrence River, and the Great Lakes." A teacher wrote in and said that her students didn't need to know the individual lakes- they just needed to know the Great Lakes in general. I'm thinking, what??? How are you teaching this in your classroom? Is this teacher just pointing to some blue blob on a map and saying "Here are the Great Lakes" without actually teaching what they are? I guess I am just baffled in general when people complain about "extra" material. I understand if the material was completely irrelevant or not appropriate for the grade level, but if teachers truly don't see the value in covering "extra" material, then I find that truly sad. I also think that standards and curriculum should allow for creativity and flexibility.