C. Aloe- Research Assignment

9^th and 10^th Grade Modern World History- Washington State Curriculum

The Washington curriculum outlines ninth-tenth grade modern world history, and breaks it into a series of five unit outlines: 1) Global Expansion and Encounter (1450-1750), 2) Age of Revolutions (1750-1914), 3) International Conflicts (1870-present), 4) Emergence and Development of New Nations (1900-present), and 5) Challenges to Democracy and Human Rights (1945-present).

In order to prepare liberated, skilled, critical thinkers, I support teaching history from a “forward perspective.” In other words, history should be examined from the perspective of the time/people under examination. Through this method history students develop the analytical skills necessary to assume the role of whomever we are examining. Such engagement supports skills like empathy, contextualization, sourcing, etc… When students have the freedom to explore their individual questions and/or interests, they are more likely to actively engage with the content.

I like how WA stresses the need for 2 years of world history, and I imagine school districts and/or teachers could select which units need more or less time overall. I prefer approaching history from a thematic stance, instead of a concrete chronological stance, so I like the general framework. One thing I would modify is how much time should be spent on each of these units/expectations. At least then beginning teachers could gauge, on average, how to pace their classes.

Moreover, the WA social studies curriculum is often vague/broad, and I worry about how teachers are held accountable for the content. For example, standard 3.1.2 encompasses a wide breadth of places and cultures: “identifies major world regions and understands their cultural roots.” I appreciate the curriculum’s inclusive approach, but I also think there needs to be more structure in terms of identifying essential “major world regions.” I worry that teachers/districts might exclude certain regions from their curriculum, thereby ignoring certain cultures/histories.

Additionally, the WA frameworks list the “required general learning expectations,” but they do not include any required documents, events, people, etc… Perhaps this is a blessing-in-disguise, however I think it is also important to provide a bit more guidance when it comes to covering crucial information. Then again, I think the WA framework allows teachers and districts to have more freedom than I a typically accustomed to. So, I can definitely see how the lack of specifics could facilitate more “liberated” classroom learning.