My district has decided to change the Social Studies curriculum. In my opinion, this changes brings a more fluid timeline to a previously hectic 7 years for students.
5th(US History)-> 6th(US/Ancient Egypt)-> 7th(Classical Empires-Middle Ages)->
8th(US History)->9th(World Cultures)->10th(US I)-> 11th(US II)
A child might get pretty confused through the years. It seems that every other year they are learning US History. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think learning about US History is important, but how much of it do we need? At what point does US History turn into World History anyway. From WWI on all history is World History, isn’t it? You can’t tell me that in each of those US History years, kids will(or need to) be learning about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Louisiana Purchase.
5th(US I)->6th(US II)->7th(Early Man – Classical Empires)->
8th(World Religions-Exploration)->9th(Exploration-Rising Empires)->
10th(US I)-> 11th(US II)
This seems a little bit more fluent. In 5th and 6th grade kids can learn all about American History…Declaration of Independence to WWII (The whole sha-bang). In 7th through 9th, teachers will now get the chance to work on depth, not breadth. They can focus on what they want to focus without feeling rushed to get through the entire curriculum. I feel this could be a great switch.
Even though this change does not affect me too much, I still think it would be a great chance for teachers that have been teaching the same thing for a while to clean out their files. I think many teachers get stuck in a rut and teach the same thing year after year. This will give them a chance to think of new ideas and brainstorm with their colleagues. This profession is all about being collegial.
I may be a perpetual optomist, but is there anything you might see wrong with this switch?