Why Kentucky’s social studies standards need to be fairly detailed

New standards for Kentucky's instruction of social studies were approved by the Kentucky Board of Education on February 6, 2019. As I pointed out in a previous blog, based on comparisons to standards from Massachusetts and Indiana, two states with highly regarded standards, a lot of specific material is stunningly missing in the new Kentucky document.

Those omissions could have consequences.

If it’s not in the standards, it can’t be in the tests

Senate Bill 1 from the 2017 Regular Legislative Session set up the review process for all of Kentucky’s education standards and the associated state assessments. But, the bill includes more. On Page 20, lines 9 to 10, the bill says:

“The statewide assessments shall not include any academic standards not approved by the board under subsection (2) of this section.”

So, if something isn’t included in the standards approved by the Kentucky Board of Education, the state can’t put that material into state tests. However, because the new standards are often quite vague (examples follow later), how do we know what really is included in the standards? Also, because the standards are a legal document, is it permissible to make assumptions about what is fair game for testing when something isn’t clearly included in the standards?

For some answers, click the “Read more” link.

Too many assumptions required

Some defenders of the new social studies standards say that even though the standards statements found in the document are often very loose, the standards still require information about key historical figures to be discussed even though virtually no historically important individuals are listed. But, even standards supporters admit this involves a lot of assumptions. That’s problematic, however. As pointed out above, if something isn’t in the standards, it can’t go on the state assessments.

Also, anything that isn’t clearly mentioned in the standards might not show up in individual classrooms, either. This opens the door wide for a rather chaotic system where no two social studies classrooms in Kentucky convey at least a basic, common core knowledge to students.

Vague standards are problematic for more reasons. I think the legal system generally takes a very dim view about things supposedly being included in legal documents by assumption only. If the standards or the assessments that will be based on them get disputed in court, will the court say that if some historical figure or fact was intended to be included, that needs to be clearly stated? There is certainly uncertainty, here.

Examples that have us scratching our heads

Consider the new Grade 5 social studies standard 5.H.CE.1:

“Analyze the causes of the American Revolution and the effects individuals and groups had on the conflict.”

Now, that is a huge topic. This incredibly broad and vague statement gets a little further expansion on Page 85 of the just approved standards with the addition of this material:

“There are multiple causes of the American Revolution, including, but not limited to, the role of the French and Indian War, the enactments of a series of taxes and duties, the presence of British troops, and the Enlightenment ideologies. These causes served as a basis for individuals like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, etc., and groups like the Sons of Liberty and the Second Continental Congress to take action. The fight for independence pulled together different colonies and individuals for a common cause. Students can analyze the founding documents to determine the causes of the American Revolution and the ways individuals and groups were united to fight for a common cause.”

Even after reading the expanded description, can you tell exactly which historical figures involved with the American Revolution each school council, which ultimately controls curriculum in each school, will decide to cover?

It looks like Washington, Jefferson and Sam Adams are on the table, but how do Kentucky’s curriculum developers and teachers decide who else to include beyond those three – if any? And, will those school council decisions be made fairly uniformly across all of the 1,100 plus schools in Kentucky with councils when the only guidance is what appears above?

For example, regarding the Revolutionary Era, does Alexander Hamilton make the cut? Ben Franklin? Patrick Henry? Is King George III going to be listed? What about American friends from the Whig Party in the English Parliament? Do Ethan Allen, Benedict Arnold and their Green Mountain Boys who captured Fort Ticonderoga get covered? Does Benedict Arnold’s later treason make the muster?

Also, which documents are students going to examine to learn about this period? Another Grade 5 standard (5.H.CH.1) only lists the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights as suitable material at this grade. Only the Declaration pertains to the actual time period mentioned in the 5.H.CE.1 standard.

In general, curriculum developers and test creators get only a cryptic suggestion that other documents exist. Will Thomas Paine’s Common Sense make it into every classroom? Also, where do teachers go to access these other, unnamed documents? The standards include no helpful reference material for that, either.

Here’s a big question: How will curriculum teams insure students are familiar with all the personalities and events that might show up on the state’s social studies assessments? What sorts of questions about the revolution will be fair game on the state assessments? What is out of bounds for testing?

Since neither Paine nor his crucial “Common Sense” are listed anywhere in the standards, are these fair game for the assessments? The Social Studies Standards and Assessments Review and Development Committee and its supporting Advisory Committees were supposed to review and provide suggestions about the assessment program as well as the underlying education standards. After searching the document for the term “Assessment,” which only appears three times in limited contexts, I don’t think the approved social studies standards document even touches on such general, assessment-related efforts.

Coverage for history in other grades is also problematic

We actually should feel sorry for our teachers. How are they going to handle such extremely broad standards statements as this one (Standard 3.H.CH.2) for third graders:

“Identify contributions made by inventors in diverse world communities.” (KY Social Studies Standards, Page 64)The clarification for this vague standard doesn’t add much. It reads:

“The ability to adapt, ease workload and make life better is a defining attribute of humanity. Examining the technological contributions of a diverse array of people to the modern world forges a basic understanding of the ways modern people benefit from those who lived in the past.” (Ky Social Studies Standards, Pages 71-17)Even with the expanded discussion, the real requirements in the standards regarding inventors remains extremely vague.

Does this standard mean anyone who ever invented anything at any time in world history must be taught to our students and might be fair game on the assessments? Teaching all of that’s clearly impossible.

Which inventors should be covered? Given the great stress currently being placed on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (The STEM area), how does this standard insure all Kentucky children get at least a basic, common core of shared historical understanding about this important area of human endeavor?

The reality is that overly broad standards statements, such as the one above about inventors, make it anyone’s guess if all teachers across Kentucky will cover anything close to an essential common core of important material.

Consider these questions: will inspiring American exceptionalism examples in the inventor area such as the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse and so forth be covered? None of these are mentioned anywhere in the standards.

Which inventors are in? Who is out? Does Johannes Gutenberg and his printing press make the cut? Does Galileo’s telescope meet muster? Who decides? And, will the decisions be fairly uniform across the state? Again, the standards are silent.

Also, what about important scientific discoveries that were not really inventions. The terms “Scientific Discovery” and “Scientific Discoveries” appear nowhere in the document. The closest we get to specific discoveries is a vague mention of the “Scientific Revolution.” But, the Scientific Revolution is generally held to have taken place in the 16th and 17th centuries (see here and here).

Does this mean that Louis Pasteur’s crucial experiment that refuted the theory of spontaneous generation of living organisms is off the table for Kentucky’s students? Pasteur didn’t come along until the 1800s, you see. He and his discovery go unmentioned, as well. But, this is crucial stuff to understanding important things in medicine.

Also, consider the only place the term “Inventor” appears in the standards is in the third grade section. The term “Invention” also rarely appears, just four times, and generally in reference to just one invention such as the Cotton Gin or the sailboat. The related term “Innovation” does occur multiple times, but the presentations are also generally limited and vague. And, the use of this term completely depersonalizes the field of invention. As such, the document clearly downplays even mentioning important inventors, which is a real shame.

But, even the depersonalized coverage of the events in innovation and technology are vague. In one place discussing technology, only the horse collar and the Internet are specifically listed as examples (See Grade 4 Standards 4.G.KGE.1 on Page 82). I think that just might leave a bit out, don’t you?

Will the development of safe water supplies and proper sanitation ever get covered? With the current fuss about drinking water quality in Eastern Kentucky, don’t you think our students deserve to learn about these important, life-saving innovations, including the related policy decisions that were needed?

One thing’s for certain, the people who created the social studies standards that the state board of education just approved didn’t decide much. They mostly created a huge guessing game. Good standards don’t do that.

Is there adequate notice for what is coming on the state assessments?

I’m not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect that lawyers and our courts would say the collection of many vague statements in the new social studies standards doesn’t begin to provide adequate notice about what will be fair game on Kentucky’s new social studies assessment. That is a potentially serious problem.

Aside from the clear requirement in SB-1 mentioned above about things having to be in the standards to be on the tests, there is a body of school law dating much further back that says fair notice about what is included has to be made clear for tests with stakes attached. You can read more about that in a report created for the Kentucky Office of Education Accountability back in 1995 beginning on Page A-6. This legal information says if schools are held accountable:

“…fairness dictates that they have adequate notice of what they will be held accountable for. Notice means not only knowing in advance but being given clear information about what is to be taught and the specific outcomes to be expected.”

Got that? The schools must be given clear notice about what to teach and specific outcomes expected. Otherwise, just as Senate Bill 1 specifies, the material cannot be used to hold schools accountable.

The first time a question shows on a Kentucky assessment that isn’t clearly covered by the standards, the whole standards effort, the curriculum that resulted, and the expensive tests that were created could all be headed to the legal trash can.

So, here’s today’s summation:

We know standards work isn’t easy. It requires writers to make challenging decisions about what is, and what isn’t, going to be in both the instruction and the testing programs. But, ducking that responsibility with a vague and incomplete document doesn’t do anyone, especially our students, any favors. And, given that the new standards really load it up on test developers to make a lot of assumptions about what actually is included, there could be heavy legal waters ahead.

Thus, the stage is also set for yet another round of test-driven instruction in the classroom because teachers, also denied details about what is fair game, are going to defer to whatever the testers start scoring as adequate performance. Senate Bill 1 didn’t intend for this to happen, but that is where we are heading unless someone in authority puts their foot down.

If you are concerned about the newly approved social studies standards and the related regulation that will incorporate them, 704 KAR 8:060, Kentucky Academic Standards for Social Studies, the public now has a chance to weigh in on them. The actual public comment period is currently expected to run from February 15 to March 31, with a live presentation opportunity on March 27, 2019.

Comments on the regulation/document can be sent to:regcomments@education.ky.gov

or via mail to:

Deanna Durrett, General Legal Counsel

Kentucky Department of Education300 Sower Blvd., 5th Floor

Frankfort, KY 40601.

Because the public comments must also be considered by the Kentucky Board of Education, you might also want to address the board, as well. The board’s joint mailing address is:

Kentucky Board of Education

c/o Kentucky Department of Education501 Mero Street

Frankfort, KY 40601Individual board member contact information is here.