Critically Thinking about K-12 Standards

An Extraordinary New Development

Most people do not realize that the real power regarding K-12 curricula resides with their State Board of Education (SBE) — not local boards. In most States, among other things, the SBE does the following three key things:

• they approve Standards for every subject and every grade year,

• they approve textbooks for every subject and every grade year, and

• they approve periodic statewide competency tests.

So, to get a State to start teaching Critical Thinking, the SBE is who needs to be sold on it, as it is typically their call.

I’m doing that in the one State I’ve picked to set a nationwide example. Their SBE said that they were 100% in agreement that Critical Thinking needed to be taught. I gave them my proposed K-12 Standards for a new Critical Thinking course (30± pages).

After looking it over they came back and said that they were inclined to teach Critical Thinking by covering it in multiple subjects (i.e., piecemeal), rather than in a single stand-alone course throughout K-12.

Although they didn’t say so, I believe that this decision was primarily administrative (e.g., how do we set aside time for a new course?). I think that problem is surmountable as AlterAI came up with a new class schedule allowing 30 minutes a day for Critical Thinking, and eliminating some less important time allotments (e.g., like SEL!).

Stand-alone vs Distributed

More importantly, this is NOT a choice between comparable options. There are MANY reasons why a stand-alone course is far superior, like:

1) States do not integrate mathematics into science classes and hope for the best. They do not integrate reading into social studies and call it covered. Etc. Foundational disciplines are taught as stand-alone subjects because dedicated, systematic instruction produces far better results, and more measurable outcomes. Critical Thinking is a foundational discipline that warrants the same respect and treatment.

2) Asking teachers in different subject areas to add what is needed to teach Critical Thinking to an already full instructional load guarantees inconsistent and superficial treatment with little teacher buy-in. When a Standard is everyone’s responsibility, it becomes no one’s priority.

3) Dispersing the teaching of Critical Thinking among multiple subjects would guarantee that the results would be fragmented, with major gaps of students’ knowledge and understanding of this significant subject.

4) The piecemeal education of Critical Thinking would result in corrections or improvements to Standards made irregularly, as each subject is on a different 8-year review schedule for their Standards.

5) When it is a stand-alone subject, the SBE can implement Critical Thinking Standards immediately, and not have to wait for the other subject area Standards to come around to upgrade them.

6) Revising every existing subject’s textbook to properly embed Critical Thinking is a logistical nightmare that publishers will resist, delay, and bill for — and take many years to bring about. A single dedicated textbook series is faster, cheaper, and far more likely to actually happen.

7) If Critical Thinking is everywhere, it's nowhere on the report card. A stand-alone course produces a stand-alone grade. Parents, employers, and colleges can see at a glance whether a student can think critically, or not.

8) The stand-alone option would assure that Critical Thinking was taught by teachers specifically trained to do it.

9) The scheduling objection is a choice, not a constraint. Thirty minutes daily is achievable by trimming material that has not produced substantial results. The question isn’t whether there’s time for a stand-alone course, it’s whether Critical Thinking matters more than what fills that slot now.

10) No State currently teaches Critical Thinking as a stand-alone K-12 subject. The first State to do it owns the narrative, sets the national benchmark, attracts the best teachers, produces the most educated students, etc. Every other State will be copying their model. Leadership means going first — not waiting for someone else to prove it works.

A HUGE Bonus

Despite the ten powerful facts above, I decided to make the State’s decision a no-brainer. Based on the assumption that there was an administrative challenge in justifying setting aside 30 minutes a day for a new subject (understandable), I decided to take an ally’s (Jennifer Weber’s) suggestion and add more material to this new subject — to make it harder to say no to.

The decision was to add another powerful subject that no State is formally teaching: Artificial Intelligence Literacy! Specifically, I am now proposing that the new subject be “Critical Thinking & AI Literacy.” In other words, the new subject would be teaching not only the most powerful K-12 skill, but also what is arguably the most important subject of our time.

After making this decision (last week), I spent several days creating a major new set of K-12 Standards: Critical Thinking & AI Literacy (some 40 pages). Since I am still doing minor edits, no State has seen it yet.

The Bottom Line

So the core question to the SBE is: how important is it to them to formally teach Critical Thinking and Artificial Intelligence to their K-12 students?

If it is a TOP priority (as it should be), the SBE will find the classroom time, and will opt for the superior stand-alone way of teaching Critical Thinking and AI Literacy to their K-12 students.

---

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about twice a week.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)