Gov.
Glenn Youngkin
(R-VA) was elected with a mandate to increase excellence and reduce ideology in public
education
. He had to overhaul the history and social studies standards inherited from his Democratic predecessor, Ralph Northam, and direct his Department of Education to create “best in nation” standards.
Less because Northam’s standards were egregiously ideological. While they put a liberal thumb on the scale in a few places, they actually looked rather conservative compared to those in Minnesota. That state’s kindergarten geography wants students to explain how places and regions are “influenced by power structures” and “use ethnic and indigenous studies methods and sources in order to understand the roots of contemporary systems of oppression.” It’s more because Northam’s standards were a sprawling mess. Clocking in at over 400 pages long, the frequently redundant document didn’t seem to know whether it wanted to be a set of standards, a curriculum framework, or a textbook.
In November, Virginia’s secretary of education released a revised version. In a few places, it took the liberal thumb off the scale (e.g., no more straight line between the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the transgender movement of the 2020s). And, if you consider teaching students about the evils of communism “conservative,” then it was perhaps a touch conservative. But the primary difference was in its organization, clarity, and concision. In 53 pages, it articulated a vision for what every student ought to know and be able to do that would satisfy parents across the political spectrum. Indeed, if you
read
the Washington Post’s side-by-side comparison, you’d probably be struck by how hard you had to squint to find a difference worth raising a stir about.
Unless, of course, it’s literally your job to agitate against Republican governance. As the Washington Post also
reported
, the new standards were met with a public outcry from left-leaning activist groups such as the Virginia Education Association, the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union, chapters of the NAACP, and others. They claimed that Youngkin’s new standards “whitewashed” history and somehow prevented teachers from teaching accurately and impartially. When you cut from 400 to 50 pages, there will, of course, be some molehills that can be spun into mountains. But no intelligent reader whose opinions were rooted in historical literacy and good faith could have doubted that the November draft showcased the bad along with the good in American history.
Still, the Virginia Department of Education agreed to revise the standards to incorporate public feedback, and last week, it released a new version with about 20 added pages. While a bit less streamlined, the new draft maintains an admirable balance. Nothing was added that should concern conservative parents, while enough was added that should satisfy liberal activist groups. (Provided they are operating with an eye to the content, not political optics — which is not a safe assumption.)
Youngkin’s team has done a good job in creating a set of standards that should serve as a model for the nation. For the Left, the purpose of civics education is “action,” i.e., encouraging activism for liberal political causes. For teachers, the purpose of civics is to promote “critical thinking,” which sounds nice, but you might think twice about that if you asked a teacher to define it.
For the Youngkin administration, the purpose of civics is to instill the common knowledge that can stitch together diverse people and the dispositions and skills that every citizen should have. Until almost yesterday, this used to be part of the commonly agreed-upon purpose of education. But today, unfortunately, the exact opposite proposition, that schools ought to reinforce difference and fray a common social fabric, reigns in schools of education under the name of “culturally responsive” pedagogy.
It’s telling that Youngkin’s earlier draft, which Republican and Democrat parents would have easily approved of, received such flak from activists, while Minnesota’s standards, which are so progressive as to make the median Democrat blush, received little pushback aside from a critique commissioned by a conservative state think tank. There is a massive activist asymmetry in and around public education.
Republicans have recently edged out Democrats when it comes to public trust on education, and this tale of two standards shows why. If you want politically balanced schools, best to vote for a Republican like Youngkin. Because you’d much rather send your children to a school with standards informed by scholars and activists from both sides than a school with standards scripted by critical race theory scholar-activists.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Max Eden is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
