Will students still learn about D-Day under new social studies standards?

On June 6, 1944, nearly 160,000 Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, pushing back Nazi Germany and changing the course of world history. The D-Day invasion marked the beginning of the end of Adolf Hitler’s regime and was one of the most consequential military operations ever undertaken. This year marks the 82nd anniversary of that pivotal moment during World War II.

For years, under the 2011 social studies standards that were still in effect this past school year, 7th graders in Minnesota have been required to learn about the key battles of World War II, including D-Day, as part of their social studies education.

But will that change this fall with the implementation of Minnesota’s new K-12 social studies standards and benchmarks?

References to D-Day or Normandy do not appear in these new standards and benchmarks. That omission is part of a broader pattern that American Experiment has called attention to for years. Rather than identifying specific events and knowledge students are expected to learn, the new standards often emphasize broader concepts.

For example, under the new benchmarks, 7th graders will be asked to “analyze connections between World War II, Fascism and the Holocaust.”

Yet the history standard paired with this benchmark no longer spells out many of the events that have traditionally anchored students’ understanding of the war. Before 7th grade, the only reference to WWII comes in 6th grade, when students are asked to “identify multiple narratives about how World War II and the Cold War impacted Minnesotans.”

This shift from specific content-based knowledge to conceptual learning is not accidental. In its Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), the Minnesota Department of Education argues that the new standards are needed because today’s students primarily engage in “rote memorization” — or “simply reiterat[e] content” — as “promoted by standards that list discrete facts.” The new standards represent a “shift away from standards that list a set of content students are expected to know” toward “disciplinary inquiry.”

The SONAR assumes that students can somehow develop “historical thinking” or “literacy” or analysis skills without a base of factual knowledge to work from. Researchers who study learning and cognition have long found that background knowledge is what makes critical thinking possible.

The new history standards emphasize repeatedly that in inquiry-based instruction, all students are expected to construct their own meaning, or essentially decide what is true for them. Again, the SONAR makes this clear: “History,” it declares, “is the construction of a narrative, and the narrative is the product.”

Consider the current history standard that is paired with the 7th grade D-Day benchmark described above:

The economic growth, cultural innovation and political apathy of the 1920s ended in the Great Depression which spurred new forms of government intervention and renewed labor activities, followed by World War II and an economic resurgence. (The Great Depression and World War II: 1920-1945)

Here is the new history standard that is paired with the 7th grade World War II benchmark described above:

Context, Change, and Continuity: Ask historical questions about context, change and continuity in order to identify and analyze dominant and non-dominant narratives about the past.

The current standard identifies a specific period and specific events for students to study. The replacement standard focuses on “dominant and non-dominant narratives.” That framework imposes a single interpretive lens before students have built the factual knowledge needed to evaluate competing interpretations in the first place.

Students need anchors — dates, names, places, and events — that help them make sense of the past. Conceptual frameworks, when divorced from specific facts, risk leaving students susceptible to the idea that history is merely a collection of competing narratives rather than a record of things that actually happened.

To be fair, nothing in the new standards prevents teachers from covering D-Day. But standards and benchmarks exist precisely to ensure that what is taught is not left entirely to chance or individual discretion.

As Minnesota school boards prepare to implement these new standards this fall, they should consider supplementing them with the current standards to fill in the factual content no longer required. They also have the authority and responsibility to ensure the curriculum selected to teach the standards and benchmarks is academically rigorous, accurate, and balanced. It is critical they choose wisely.