by James A. Bacon
The Youngkin administration has laid out the thinking behind its revisions to the History and Social Studies Standards of Learning tests. The broad thrust is to educate students on how Virginia and the United States came to have the institutions they have. Underlying assumptions are that (1) representative government, property rights, free markets, human rights, and the rule of law are good things; and (2) while there is much to regret about American history, there is much to celebrate and uphold. Teachers will be expected to teach the good with the bad, not to “bury” unpleasant aspects of our history. They also will be expected to conduct “open and balanced discussion” on controversial topics, not to indoctrinate.
As The Washington Post reports today, not everyone is happy with this approach.
Perhaps the most vehement critic of Team Youngkin’s philosophy is James J. Fedderman, president of the Virginia Education Association — a union representing the more than 40,000 education workers across Virginia who will be tasked with teaching to the new standards.
“The standards are full of overt political bias, outdated language to describe enslaved people and American Indians, highly subjective framing of American moralism and conservative ideals, coded racist overtures throughout, requirements for teachers to present histories of discrimination and racism as ‘balanced’ ‘without personal or political bias,’ and restrictions on allowance of ‘teacher-created curriculum,’ which is allowed in all other subject areas,” he said.
Translation: Fedderman has his own biases about the way history should be taught, and he wants the SOLs to reflect his preference to teach history and social studies as a form of oppression studies. His goal is not to build better citizens but to build better social justice warriors. The disconnect between Fedderman’s view of the world and Governor Glenn Youngkin’s is so profound that I don’t see how a productive dialogue can ever take place.
Remarks by Senator Jennifer B. Boysko, D-Fairfax, are in the same vein. She was disappointed, she told the WaPo, that the new standards didn’t address “the contributions of the large and varied communities from Central and South Asia who are a significant part of Virginia’s population.”
I’m guessing she has a lot of Asians in her senatorial district. Otherwise, this comment is inexplicable. In contrast to Blacks and Whites, whose history reaches back 400 years, the migration of Asians (and Latin Americans) into Virginia is such a recent phenomenon that it’s fair to say they played no significant role throughout most of Virginia’s history. Undoubtedly, Asians will play an increasing role in the years ahead, and the teaching of history inevitably will reflect that.
Boysko also criticized the new standards for not emphasizing the responsibilities students have as citizens “to participate fully in society,” according to the WaPo. “What I want to see is that all students understand that they can contribute to making the world a better place as opposed to just memorizing facts and dates about people who have contributed to history.”
Translation: She would like to see more student activism. Just like Fedderman. At least as long as it’s the right kind of activism, which would be fighting for the same center-left causes that she embraces.
Many Virginians would agree with me that student activism is fine, as long as students are acting of their own volition and not encouraged by teachers and administrators to participate in particular political causes and not others. You know what else is desirable? Learning. Imparting knowledge should be the core mission of schools and teachers, not raising the next generation of left-of-center activists.
I also found revealing this comment from Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington: “The effort to revive (revise?) social studies content is the latest in a series of efforts by the governor to shape education along the lines of his preferences. The governor may be walking into a fight with educators, but that can’t possibly be a surprise to him at this point.”
Hmmm. What is Farnsworth implying here? That the existing social studies curriculum was free of bias before Youngkin started meddling with it? That former Governor Ralph Northam had not tried to revise the SOL standards according to his preferences? Farnworth’s remark tells us more about where Farnsworth is coming from ideologically than it does about the SOL standards.
If this is the most trenchant criticism that Post can find, then I don’t think Youngkin has much to worry about.
Indeed a comment to the Post from Ian Prior, founder of the conservative advocacy group Fight for Schools, likely expresses the views of most Virginians:
History is a function of human nature, conflict, and progress. It can be inspiring, it can be dark, and it can be challenging to teach and learn. Applied correctly by educators in the classroom, [the proposed changes] will unlock key critical thinking skills that students can use to make their own analysis and decisions as they mature into young leaders.
What a remarkable idea — teach young people to think for themselves. I’ll take that side of the debate any day.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.