A SGU Reflection on the Proposed South Dakota Social Studies Standards

 
A SGU Reflection on the Proposed South Dakota Social Studies Standards
There has been a fair amount of discussion this year over the revised Social Studies Standards proposed by the SD Department of Education. As a university we feel a special responsibility to understand the different opinions being expressed. As a Lakota tribal university, our response looks to reflect the value of Wolakota - working together in difficult and challenging times to find a common and acceptable pathway forward.
 
So we begin with the reminder that there are two kinds of education in life.  The first is an education in concern – passing on the loyalties, attachments, beliefs, and ideals that hold a community together. We get this education in concern through our family and from our interactions in the community, including those with our teachers. 
 
The education in concern consists mainly of beliefs and admonitions that are passed on through stories and celebrated in anniversaries, pledges of allegiance, flag songs and other recurring rituals.   Some of the recurring stories are about early leaders who faced difficult hardships but overcame the challenges with ingenuity, courage and cunning.  This common focus applies both to the founding fathers of American society and the well-known leaders in Lakota and Dakota societies. In short, this pervasive education in concern looks to ensure that children learn and continue to live by the values that promote and hold the society together. 
 
The education in concern is not a matter of gathering historical evidence or accurate measurements: Concern is what the group feels and believes will build a bond and help people stand together in support of the tribe or state or nation.  A simple example is the common story of young George Washington owning up to chopping the cherry tree. The story continues to be told in grade schools despite its mythical construction.  That is, the point of the story isn’t to pass on historical fact. The story is told to promote values and help shape students into responsible members of society. 
 
What about the story of society being presented in the proposed Social Studies Standards? An adequate response to this question would take some study, but without looking too far we notice that Daniel Boone is on the list of people that the Standards say students need to know.  Is Daniel Boone, like the young George Washington, another innocent example of a concern to educate students to be brave and support the community?
 
Boone has been presented in textbooks (and early television series) as a lone individual whose life guided immigrants across frightening landscapes into the fertile lands to the West. His character in the stories highlights individual courage as well as a willingness to help others, both key components of an education in concern.  But Boone is also presented as a character in the Manifest Destiny story of Western expansion, a narrative that attempts to cover up decades of genocidal Indian removal policies by focusing on brave and adventurous White immigrant settlers moving westward.  
 
In this light, Daniel Boone as a key figure that students need to know means glossing over serious matters in our social history, matters that continue to exist and often divide the community.  A genuine education tries to find ways for students to learn about these difficult issues and to identify related or parallel issues that may persist in current society. 
 
Here we come to the other kind of education. This is the education in the truth of correspondence, the primary business of schools and universities. In contrast with the education in concern, this form of education places a high value on gathering evidence and factual data for one’s statements.  This distinction between the two ways of doing education suggests that the discussion and dissension surrounding the proposed SD Social Studies Standards is really an attempt to sort out the proper balance between a protective education in concern and the open-minded challenges of an education in the truth of correspondence. 
 
This distinction and contrast in the two forms of education brings us closer to understanding the implicit conflict that has emerged in discussions of the proposed Social Studies Standards.  The conflict stems from the fact that the truth of correspondence eventually turns its attention to examining some of the details and beliefs proposed by the education in concern. We are all familiar with the well-known examples of Galileo and Darwin, and how the evidence gathered by telescope, geology, and evolutionary biology challenged long-established social beliefs about the earth’s history and an earth-centered universe. Intense conflict exists today, too, as the history and notions of racism and gender identity are being more openly discussed and explored.
 
Are there ways to deal with this kind of conflict? Here is advice from SD Senator Mike Rounds who co-sponsored the RESPECT Act signed into law on December 27, 2022.  Senator Rounds said: “While we cannot rewrite the past, we need to acknowledge it and continue to strive for a more perfect Union.”  According to Senator Rounds, the concern for unity rests on acknowledging the past, not moving it aside as too controversial and potentially harmful to that unity.
 
So let’s ask ourselves if both sides in the controversy over the proposed Social Studies Standards might come together to find a way forward. A likely approach for a joint project would come from the developmental psychology developed by Vygotsky, Gattegno, Piaget and others. A joint project of this sort would respect the apparent concern that exposing students to historical fact, including examples of racism and conflict in SD and US history, needs to be dealt with in a way that is appropriate to their ages.  A group of educators and others should be recruited to examine the proposed Standards and make changes as indicated by developmental and educational psychology.  A process like this would require a serious effort on both sides and involve leadership from SD universities. 
 
Tribal communities have always found ways to adapt to the changing natural and social environments. Through years of challenge and struggle our communities continue to find ways to adapt and mature in today’s complex and diverse world.  Unfortunately, we see some societies and nations around the world failing to adapt. In place of maturity and humility, we see political leadership kidnapping communities’ concerns and beliefs and using them to promote a form of ‘concerned’ authoritarianism. We can do better on Lakota and Dakota indigenous homelands.  We can do better in South Dakota. 
 
 
                                                                 
Dr. Jim Green, Director                                                           Cheryl Medearis, Academic VP
Institute for Indigenous Teaching                                          Chair, Teacher Education
Sinte Gleska University                                                           Sinte Gleska University
[email protected]                                                    [email protected]