Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
      • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
    • Our Work in Dayton
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • High Achievers
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
    • Events
  • Scholars Program
Flypaper

How not to write state standards for civics and U.S. history

Jeremy Smith
7.15.2021
Getty Images/BrianAJackson

As discussed in Fordham’s new report, many states aren’t making the grade when it comes to their civics and U.S. history standards, which are often vague to the point of being meaningless.

Detailed profiles of every state’s standards are included at the end of the report. But since things have gotten a bit testy lately on the history front, we thought we’d share some of the goofiest standards we encountered, both to illustrate what ineffective standards look like and because, well, you’ve got to laugh to keep from crying.

Like the United States itself, our tour starts in the east and then moves west.

New Hampshire (Fifth/sixth grade civics)

“SS:CV:6.3.2: Describe ways in which countries interact with each other culturally, economically, diplomatically, or militarily. (Themes: A: Conflict and Cooperation, E: Cultural Development, Interaction, and Change, F: Global Transformation)”

Like many standards, this one gives the illusion of substance but doesn’t pass muster upon closer examination. Is there any interaction between countries that isn’t cultural, economic, diplomatic, or military? How is a theme like “conflict and cooperation” supposed to be useful to teachers who are planning a lesson or unit? And what does “global transformation” refer to exactly?

Pennsylvania (High school history)

“8.1.U.A: Evaluate patterns of continuity and change over time, applying context of events.”

Is it possible to write a set of high school history standards that includes no history content whatsoever? Pennsylvania thinks so. Compared to this vacuous exhortation, the New Hampshire standard is a model of clarity and specificity.

North Carolina (First grade civics)

“1.C&G.1.1: Exemplify ways individuals and groups play a role in shaping communities.”

By now, perhaps, you’ve sensed a pattern. Like the last one, this standard is exceedingly vague. But in this case, the apparent misuse of the word “exemplify” adds yet another layer of confusion. Are kids really supposed to exemplify these things? Or are they supposed to describe examples? (And if it’s the latter, what types of examples should be covered? How complex should they be? And how many examples are enough?)

Illinois (Fifth grade civics)

“SS.CV.4.5: Explain how policies are developed to address public problems.”

To state the obvious, “policies” can be local, state, national, or international. Similarly, “public problems” could include anything from crumbling infrastructure to monopolies in big tech. Kangaroo harvesting in Australia is a policy developed to address a public problem, as was the Chinese government’s one-child rule. Both would fit into this standard as written.

Iowa (High school civics)

“SS-Gov.9-12.13. Evaluate the powers and responsibilities of local, state, tribal, national, and international civic and political institutions, how they interact and the role of government in maintaining order.”

If there are any limits to the scope of this standard, they are well-disguised. Meanwhile, there’s no indication that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (which specifies the powers of Congress) is considered required content (which it definitely should be) or that students should know the difference between exclusive and concurrent powers (which they definitely should).

Moving on… 

Nebraska (Fifth grade history)

“SS 5.4.1.a: Examine the chronology of key events in the United States and communicate their impact on various groups in the past, present, and future. For example: Development of civilizations in America before Columbus, founding of colonies, Native American responses to colonization, coming of American Revolution, founding of United States, creation of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, the gradual abolition of slavery in the northern states”

This standard isn’t quite as bad as the others. But beyond giving educators a dim sense of the intended time period, the “examples” provide little meaningful guidance.

Wyoming (High school history)

“SS12.4.1: Describe patterns of change (cause and effect) and evaluate how past events impacted future events and the modern world.”

Based on the wording of this standard, one might assume that some guidance on which events should be evaluated appears elsewhere in Wyoming’s standards. Yet with the exception of some (commendable) attention to the state’s indigenous tribes, that is not the case.

Montana (Fifth grade history)

“SS.H.5.3: Identify roles of individuals and groups and their impact on United States and tribal historical events.”

Basically, study U.S. history!

Washington (Eighth grade history)

“C3.6-8.6 Analyze how the United States has interacted with other countries.”

Wait, haven’t we seen this standard before? Maybe that New Hampshire standard wasn’t so bad.

Oregon (Sixth grade civics)

“6.20: Identify and analyze the causes and effects of oppression and resistance in the living histories of historically marginalized groups in the Western Hemisphere.”

As the wording of this standard suggests, Oregon often uses words like oppression, resistance, living histories, and marginalized groups to show that it cares. But the appearance of virtue is a poor substitute for the real thing (or for specific content).

Of course, not all state civics and U.S. history standards are bad. To wit, here’s one from back east that’s quite good:

Massachusetts (High school history)

“USII.T3.10: Explain what communism is as an economic system and analyze the sources of Cold War conflict; on a political map of the world, locate the areas of Cold War conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the 1950s to the 1980s.”

This standard is clear and specific, giving meaningful guidance and support for social studies teachers. Massachusetts, along with Alabama, California, D.C., and Tennessee, provide excellent models for civics and U.S. history standards. Other states should follow their example.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Governance
Standards

Jeremy Smith is a research assistant with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. A Virginia native, Jeremy holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from Hamilton College and a master’s degree in physics teaching from the University of Virginia. He is currently working toward a master’s degree in education policy at American University. Prior to joining Fordham, Jeremy worked as a high school teacher, university instructor, and…

View Full Bio

Sign Up to Receive Fordham Updates

We'll send you quality research, commentary, analysis, and news on the education issues you care about.
Thank you for signing up!
Please check your email to confirm the subscription.

Related Content

view
Ohio charter news logo
School Choice

Ohio Charter News Weekly – 2.3.23

Chad L. Aldis, Jeff Murray 2.3.2023
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
view
Gadfly Bites logo
School Funding

Gadfly Bites 2/3/23—The good, the bad, and the obvious of voucher expansion

Jeff Murray 2.3.2023
OhioOhio Gadfly Daily
view
High Expectations

How much education is a public responsibility?

Chester E. Finn, Jr. 2.2.2023
NationalFlypaper
Fordham Logo

© 2020 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

1015 18th St NW, Suite 902 
Washington, DC 20036

202.223.5452

[email protected]

  • <
Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]