Tale of two politicized social studies standards: Minnesota and Texas

Both Minnesota and Texas are in the process of implementing new social studies standards that brought backlash for their politicized origin, alleged instructional bias, and sweeping changes.

Besides the fact that Texas boasts the beginning of Interstate-35 and Minnesota the end, the two states don’t share much. While careful demographers in both states would argue that both states could turn purple soon, conservative, cowboy Texas has been red since Carter’s first run in 1976 and liberal Minnesota has been true-blue since Nixon’s 1972 campaign.

Minnesota

The North Star State’s new social studies standards are entering classrooms this fall. The social studies standards added ethnic studies as a fifth strand of social studies, with the expectation that ethnic studies will be added to all subjects as their standards come up for review. Minnesota does not have a required reading list.

Critics inside and outside the department complained that the new social studies standards obscured or completely dropped essential pieces of history while inculcating identity-first, grievance-based mindsets. Supporters argued that an increased understanding of identity and community is essential for young learners.

While the content of the social studies framework itself certainly underwent a complete overhaul, it’s the new mandated pedagogical perspective that will prove most transformative. According to the Minnesota Department of Education, the changes represent an intentional “shift” away from specific content-based knowledge to conceptual learning centered on “dominant and non-dominant narratives.”  Learning will become collaborative, as students and community members “co-create” curricula, assessments, and classroom practices. Ethnic Studies, then, will be embedded in courses like math and science through a new, collaborative approach to pedagogy, rather than a proscriptive content list.

Just like Texas, the social studies standards were created by outspoken partisans. The Minnesota team that created the social standards includes professor Brian Lozenski, whose remarks stating that “the U.S. must be overthrown” raised eyebrows. The working group also included representatives from Education for Liberation MN, whose purpose is “to contend with the status quo of colonial education,” Unidos, which organizes high schoolers for monthly activism, Education Evolving, a Minnesota advocacy organization which hopes to reimagine schools as “a place of agency and shared power“, and racial equity advocate Minnesota Education Equity Partnership.

Funding for these organizations came from several sources, including local left-leaning foundations like the Bush Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, and the McKnight Foundation. Additional grants came from the Minnesota Professional Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB) and direct appropriations from the state budget.

The heir apparent of new ethnic studies curricula is the taxpayer-funded U of M’s Center for Race, Indigeneity, Disability, Gender & Sexuality Studies (RIDGS). RIDGS’ self-declared mission is to “challenge systems of power and inequality” and “imagine social transformation.” Critics of the RIDGS curriculum argue that they encourage progressive political protests as a pedagogical tool and center student identity over academic content.

Texas

The Lone Star State has just adopted new K-8 Social Studies standards and a new K-12 reading list. Standards will be implemented in the 2031 academic year. These standards don’t add a new strand to social studies or shift the way that instruction is planned or implemented in the classroom. However, they do change elementary instruction from a “spiral” approach (in which history topics are returned to year after year with greater depth) to a chronological approach (in which students move progressively from ancient to modern history from grade to grade).

Critics complained that elementary history instruction is typically done through a full spiral approach so that students can recover missed material during the next academic year. Proponents argued that a chronological approach allows students to fully understand change over time, and that a spiral technique is still included in the framework.

For decades, Texas has faced backlash when social studies standards are updated. Most recently, the 2010 standards faced criticism for being ideologically right-wing, so the 2018 update seemed to move toward the center. A proposed 2022 update, one seen as too left-leaning, prompted the legislature to delay the question until 2025.

The most conversation-inducing content changes include an increased focus on American and Texan exceptionalism. Some standards include discussion of how Christian ideas and stories have shaped America. Islam is mostly mentioned in the context of “Radical Islam’s” 21st century terrorism.

Supporters argue that Christianity has played a major role in shaping the country and the state. The social studies standards simply reflect that reality. Conversely, critics claim that the standards give Christianity sole credit for historic developments and focus too much on the religion.

The standards were created by the Texas Center at Schreiner University. Critics complain that a $70,000 grant was given to the university by the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, and several people from the think tank were involved in its creation. Other content advisors hailed from Civics Alliance and Hillsdale College.

In Texas, the fight as to who will develop a publicly available curriculum is still being waged. The current frontrunner is MGT Impact Solutions, a Florida-based consulting firm that has signed a $67 million contract for curricula development with the state education agency. The choice to hand the contract to the general consulting firm has not brought controversy because of perceived creator or content bias, but because the contract was not formally announced to the state for months.

Looking Closely

Below are six social studies standards, one for each grade K-5, that represent the most controversial facets of both the Minnesota social studies standards and Texas social studies standards.

(Many highlights come from critical comments made by elected officials. Other critiques of Minnesota’s standards were largely taken from American Experiment, and critiques of Texas standards were largely taken from the American Historical Association.)

This side-by-side comparison will illustrate the very different ideological frameworks each state used to revise their social studies standards. Standards have been minimally modified to fit this format and emphasis via bolding has been added.

Primary Purpose of Social Studies

Kindergarten

First Grade

Second Grade

Third Grade

Fourth Grade

Fifth Grade

Conclusions

Perhaps because of its stronger partisan culture and subsequent lack of political pushback, Minnesota’s standards certainly represent a stronger departure from traditional social studies education than Texas’ standards do. Minnesota’s new social studies standards, particularly with the new embedded nature of ethnic studies, completely upend traditional pedagogy with the expectation that courses are co-created between community and teacher. Minnesota’s standards are purposely nonspecific and general, allowing for each classroom to decide what specific content (if any) is taught.

Texas’ standards do mention Christianity (and its connection to American and Texan culture and history) often. While the historic claims made in the standards are legitimate, the consistent subject matter focus might make nonreligious Texans uncomfortable. Positively, the standards’ granular approach to naming tribes, events, and historic figures ensures that young Texans will certainly know the key figures that have shaped their world.

Each standard strongly reflects the culture of each state and the history and values contained within. In a United States where people increasingly report that they are willing to move to a place that reflects their character and values, it’s likely that these very different social studies standards reflect an increasing desire for localism and regional values in education.

This leaves parents and educators with a choice: Which star will they follow — the Lone Star or the North Star?