Apologies for my absence and the lack of reviews to start out 2021. I am still working on reviewing each grade level of Core Knowledge, but I also started reviewing each grade level of Studies Weekly. An article came out in 2019 that discussed an internal review of the Studies Weekly curriculum. It indicated that there were over 400 instances of "racial or ethnic bias, historical inaccuracies, age-inappropriate content, and other errors in the materials" A Popular Social Studies Curriculum Got an Internal Review. The Findings Weren’t Pretty (edweek.org) This got my interest piqued. The article indicated they were working on updating each grade level. So I waited for the updated levels and subscribed to Studies Weekly.
Social Studies Weekly Kindergarten:
Like my reviews of Core Knowledge, I only focus on the units that discuss Native peoples or events that should include Native peoples. While essentially every unit should include us, most curricula companies and textbook writers have not caught up to that yet. So we are left with being mentioned sporadically in curriculum.
Another note is that Studies Weekly is specific to the state you live/teach in. So I only have access to the Texas curriculum. While most of the curriculum should be generic and apply to the whole United States, some lessons are state specific.
Throughout the entire curriculum, the word "America" is used to refer to the United States. This is a pet peeve of mine. "America" consists of two whole continents (or one depending on the world model you are taught). The United States is in "America," but it is not "America" itself. Many people in other North and South American countries consider themselves to be Americans. While we do not have a term in English for citizens of the United States, it is still inaccurate and Euro-American-centric to refer to them as Americans and the United States as America. When speaking about the United States, curriculum and textbooks should say "United States."
Week 6 - What Is History
This lesson is simply to explain what history is to young kids. It is about how history is a "story from the past." Smack dab in the middle of this lesson is Christopher Columbus and Columbus Day. I am assuming it coordinates with the "holiday" during the semester, otherwise, why not literally any other story from history?? It's so unnecessary for Kindergarteners to learn about this atrocious person.
This lesson calls Columbus an "explorer" and defines "explorer" as "someone who looks for new places." Well, Columbus wasn't an explorer at all and Turtle Island wasn't new. That's all it says about him. It's really pretty absurd to throw this random two sentence page about Coulombs into this lesson with absolutely now context or historical understanding. The next part is about Columbus Day. It states "On Columbus Day, Americans honor Christopher Columbus." Again, no historical context or understanding. Okay...we "honor" this random "explorer" from an unknown time period. It then moves on completely away from Columbus. It is very disjointed. There is no mention of Indigenous peoples.
The teacher guide is titled "Lesson Plan for Week..." in each week. It becomes clear in each lesson and each grade level that the lesson plans were not updated with the lessons themselves. Studies Weekly has apparently yet to update the lesson plans for teachers even though it has been two years since the internal review.
The lesson plan for Week 6 uses outdated and inaccurate terminology like "New World" (new to who?) and states that he landed in Central America, which is false. It pushes this false "explorer" narrative through the activities and questions in the plan. One activity is to pretend like they're "explorers." Another is to "Have the students draw a picture of Columbus and his three ships. Label the ships and Columbus." The literature suggestions for English and Spanish are poor suggestions full of inaccuracies. They also push the "explorer" myth.
Week 11 - "The First Thanksgiving"
This unit is sandwiched in a strange location between "Needs and Wants" and "Earth," but I am assuming it is supposed to coordinate with the holiday itself during the semester. This entire lesson is based on mythology and false ideas rather than real history. This is the only lesson in Kindergarten that mentions Natives.
It starts off with calling the colonists "pilgrims." This term is inaccurate as no one at the time, not even themselves, referred to them as "pilgrims." They can be called "Mayflower colonists," "Separatists," Saints and Strangers," and other historically accurate terms, but "pilgrim" is incorrect. The lesson begins with the myth that the colonists were seeking freedom of religion. This is another historical inaccuracy that is taught almost universally as fact. Next it states that "The American Indians helped them learn how to live in their new country." There is so much wrong with that sentence, but I am quite hung up on the phrase "their new country." They were invaders and there was no "new country." Also there is no use of the name of the Native nations that "helped" them. "American Indians" did not "help" them, the Wampanoag did, and even then they weren't really "helping" them so much as they were building political alliances. Even if that is too complicated or detailed for Kindergarten, they should absolutely name the Native nation by name. The next section is called "A Shared Feast" so you can guess what myth is told next. It states "The Pilgrims invited the American Indians to a feast." No...no they did not. This is total mythology. It then claims the colonists landed in Plymouth. Aside from the fact that the name of the town was Patuxet before the colonists invaded and renamed it, they didn't even land there at first. They first landed in Pamet (Native name) and later renamed it Provincetown Harbor. The entire lesson is basically false.
The Lesson Plan for Week 11 continues the persecution/religious freedom myth in details for the teacher. It uses the term "Indians" exclusively for Natives rather than updated language. It gives zero context for the "Indians helping" the colonists, like a teacher guide/lesson plan should. Not only is that not reality, it literally gives no more context than what is in the lesson itself. It continues with the friendly shared feast myth. It does mention that primary sources indicate that the "Indians" were not invited, but rather "came upon" their feast after hearing gunshots. This is the actual history, but instead of teaching this in the lesson, it's just a random note to the teacher later. It doesn't even tell them to teach this to the students. Why write a lesson that is false when knowing the actual history? It doesn't make sense.
The lesson plan then makes an extremely harmful and racist suggestion. For "special events" it states "Have a First Thanksgiving feast in the classroom. Students and parents can come in costumes and bring a
dish to share." This is an old practice that is pretty well known to be awful by this point in time, but Studies Weekly didn't get the memo that this is racist. There has been a lot written by Natives and non-Natives alike about how harmful this practice is. See a few examples here: Newspaper Rock: Search results for thanksgiving costume (bluecorncomics.com)
Teaching Native American History (samanthamatalonecook.com)
How Racism Against Native People Is Normalized, From Mascots to Costumes | Teen Vogue
Week 20 - Presidents and Patriots
This lesson doesn't address Natives at all. It should in regards to how these people interacted (usually poorly) with Natives, but it does not. While the lessons are very short and simple, only a few sentences each, the whole thing is very whitewashed and clearly designed to introduce students to hero worship and unquestioning patriotism to the United States. I only mention it for this reason. It has general United States aspects and Texas specific aspects. It lists George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, Harriet Tubman, and Salem Poor for general United States "presidents and patriots" along with a short lesson about Presidents Day. It lists Stephen F Austin and Jose Antonio Navarro as "patriots" for the Texas specific part. This part will be different people for different states. I assume those will be just as whitewashed and uber patriotic as these are.
The lesson plan has again been very clearly not updated to match the new curriculum. It also has a problematic definition of "slave" (the updated curriculum uses the term "enslaved person" instead).
Week 22 - American Monuments
Again, this lesson does not mention Natives, but it absolutely should. US monuments were built on sacred land and built by enslaved labor. This does not come up at all in this lesson. It mentions the White House, Mount Vernon, Mount Rushmore, and Independence Hall. There is no mention of who built these. There is no mention of land theft or how Rushmore is carved into a sacred mountain.
Conclusion
I did not see the previous version of this curriculum, but my guess is that it hasn't really been changed much. I have already read and taken notes through their Third Grade materials and so far the whole thing is appalling. It is very Eurocentric, whitewashed, biased, and still racist. It is full of inaccuracies, false information, myths passed off as history, racist book and activity suggestions, etc. I really don't see how this is the "updated" version that is supposed to not be racist. The Kindergarten part is mild compared to the higher levels, but still just as harmful. It introduces many concepts in a very biased and harmful way. It tells lies and builds up horrible people as great. It tells awful aspects of history as happy stories. While this is common and normal in the United States, this practice needs to end. I do NOT recommend using this curriculum. I don't think anything will change my mind as I go through each grade. In fact, I will probably feel worse about each one.
