Standards Review Controversy: Oceti Sakowin & Divisive Concepts

Education standards are rarely static; they are living documents intended to evolve with our understanding of history, science, and pedagogy. However, in South Dakota, the routine process of reviewing state standards has become a highly charged political battleground. At the center of this storm are two distinct but interconnected issues: the integration of the Oceti Sakowin Essential Understandings (OSEU) into the social studies curriculum and the legislative crusade against so-called "divisive concepts."

This controversy is not academic; it strikes at the heart of what it means to be an educated citizen in South Dakota. It raises fundamental questions about local control versus state mandates, historical accuracy versus patriotic narrative, and the role of the classroom in shaping cultural identity. As an independent monitor, our analysis cuts through the rhetoric to examine the actual policy implications and their impact on the 130,000 students in our public schools.

The Oceti Sakowin Essential Understandings (OSEU)

The OSEU were developed over a decade ago as a resource for integrating the history, culture, and perspectives of the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota peoples into the state's educational framework. Initially, these were optional resources, a "best practice" guide for teachers seeking to provide a more complete picture of South Dakota history. However, the push to mandate their inclusion has met with significant resistance.

From Optional to Mandated?

Proponents of the OSEU argue that they are essential for closing the achievement gap for Native American students, who make up a significant portion of the state's student body but historically lag behind their peers in graduation rates and test scores. By seeing themselves reflected in the curriculum, the argument goes, these students will be more engaged and successful. Furthermore, for non-Native students, understanding the indigenous history of the state is crucial for civic competence.

Opponents, however, often frame the OSEU through the lens of critical race theory (CRT), suggesting that focusing on indigenous perspectives inherently divides students by race or promotes a narrative of oppressor versus oppressed. This framing has turned a pedagogical tool into a political wedge issue. The Department of Education has vacillated on the extent to which these understandings should be explicitly written into the standards versus remaining as supplementary material.

Implementation Challenges

Regardless of the mandate status, the practical implementation of the OSEU faces hurdles. Many teachers, particularly in non-Native districts, report a lack of confidence and training in teaching these concepts effectively. There is a fear of "getting it wrong" or inadvertently stepping into a cultural minefield. Without robust professional development—something that requires funding and time—the OSEU risk becoming a box-checking exercise rather than a meaningful integration of content. We have seen districts adopt the language of the OSEU in their mission statements while their actual classroom practices remain largely unchanged.

The "Divisive Concepts" Debate

Parallel to the OSEU discussion is the rise of legislation aimed at prohibiting "divisive concepts" in K-12 education. House Bill 1012, and its subsequent iterations, sought to ban instruction that promotes the idea that "one race is inherently superior to another" or that "an individual, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."

Defining "Divisive"

While the stated intent of such legislation—to prevent discrimination—appears unobjectionable on its face, the vagueness of the language has created a legal and pedagogical quagmire. What constitutes a "divisive concept"? Is teaching about the historical realities of broken treaties, the Wounded Knee Massacre, or systemic disenfranchisement considered "divisive"?

Legal analysts suggest that the broad wording leaves significant room for interpretation, potentially criminalizing the teaching of uncomfortable historical facts. The fear is that teachers will shy away from any topic that might generate controversy or parental complaint, leading to a sanitized version of history that fails to prepare students for the complexities of the real world. This is not just a theoretical concern; we have documented instances of administrators advising teachers to remove books or modify lesson plans preemptively to avoid running afoul of the new laws.

The Chilling Effect

The most significant impact of the "divisive concepts" legislation is the chilling effect it has on classroom discourse. Teachers are, by nature, risk-averse when it comes to their licensure and employment. When the boundaries of acceptable speech are unclear, the safest path is silence. This leads to a narrowing of the intellectual horizon for students.

In social studies classrooms across the state, we are seeing a retreat from inquiry-based learning, where students are encouraged to grapple with multiple perspectives and form their own conclusions. Instead, there is a return to rote memorization of dates and names—safe, uncontroversial, and ultimately less educational. This shift undermines the very purpose of social studies education, which is to create critical thinkers capable of navigating a diverse and democratic society.

The Social Studies Standards Revision Process

These tensions came to a head during the massive overhaul of the social studies standards. The initial draft, crafted by a committee of South Dakota educators, was largely scrapped by the Department of Education in favor of a version that emphasized "American exceptionalism" and downplayed historical conflicts. The public outcry was swift and intense, leading to yet another revision process.

The final standards, as they stand in 2026, represent an uneasy compromise. They include more explicit references to Native American history than the controversial second draft, but the framework is heavily influenced by the Hillsdale College model, which prioritizes a specific, traditionalist view of civics and history. Critics argue that this model is ill-suited for the diverse demographics of South Dakota and fails to adequately prepare students for a globalized world.

Conclusion: Finding a Balance

The controversy over standards review is unlikely to dissipate soon. As long as education is viewed as a proxy war for broader cultural conflicts, the classroom will remain a contested space. However, for the sake of our students, we must find a way to balance the need for a unified national narrative with the imperative to tell the whole truth about our history—the good, the bad, and the complex.

South Dakota's students deserve a curriculum that is rigorous, honest, and inclusive. They deserve teachers who are empowered to facilitate difficult conversations, not silenced by vague laws. And they deserve an education system that values their heritage, whether they are the descendants of homesteaders or the First Peoples of this land. Navigating this balance requires courage from administrators, engagement from parents, and a commitment to transparency from the state.

For related analysis on educational governance, see our School Board Governance Guide. To explore how these policies impact reading instruction, read about New Reading Mandates.