Why Oklahoma Students Will Keep Learning the Old Social Studies Curriculum

In Oklahoma, the social studies curriculum has become a battleground—not only over what students should learn, but who decides what is taught. In recent years, the State Department of Education, under Superintendent Ryan Walters, proposed sweeping changes to the state academic standards for social studies. These changes include adding more emphasis on Biblical and Judeo-Christian influences, including controversial content around the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and redefining civic education to highlight what proponents call “American exceptionalism.” 

However, despite these proposals, Oklahoma students will continue learning under the old (2019) social studies standards—at least for the near future. The reasons are legal, procedural, and practical. This article examines those reasons in depth.

Background: Proposed Changes vs. Existing Standards

• Existing Standards (2019): The Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies, Pre-K through 12, adopted in 2019 by the State Board of Education, serve as the accepted framework for what social studies education should cover. These standards include instruction on citizenship, United States naturalization test requirements, Holocaust education (grades 6–12), and a broad historical framework. 

• Proposed 2024–2025 Revisions: Superintendent Walters announced revisions aiming to:

  1. Strengthen “pro-American” values, including a deeper focus on American founding documents and leaders. 

  2. Incorporate the Bible as an instructional resource and mention religious influence more explicitly. 

  3. Introduce content that has drawn controversy, such as “discrepancies” in the 2020 election and theories around COVID-19 origins. 

These proposals have generated intense debate, both politically and legally.

Reasons the Old Curriculum Remains in Effect

There are several interlocking reasons that the 2019 standards will continue to govern social studies instruction for now.

1. Legal Challenges and Court Orders

• A group consisting of parents, faith leaders, and teachers filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new standards. They argue that significant portions—particularly those involving religious instruction—violate separation of church and state, among other concerns. 

• On September 15, 2025, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a temporary order blocking the implementation of the new social studies standards. The court specifically directed that schools continue using the 2019 standards while the legal challenge is resolved. 

Thus, judicial intervention has effectively frozen the switch to the new standards, making the existing curriculum the law of the land until further court rulings.

2. Procedural / Administrative Hurdles

• The process to revise and adopt new state academic standards in Oklahoma requires following certain procedures—stakeholder review, public comment, legislative approval, etc. Allegations have been made that some of these procedures were not properly followed in approving the new standards. For example, some members of the State Board of Education reportedly did not receive or review all versions of the draft before the vote. 

• Through a standard six‑year cycle, textbook adoption and standards review are coordinated. Even with proposed new standards, the transition depends on training, framework updates, public feedback, and infrastructure (materials, teacher preparation) being in place. Unless those pieces are ready, the old standards remain operative by default. 

3. Political and Public Resistance

• Various stakeholders, including the American Historical Association (AHA), public school teachers, parents, and legislators have voiced opposition to the proposed changes. One key criticism is that the proposed changes place ideology over historical accuracy. For instance, the AHA stated that the existing standards are “among the best in the nation,” and urged Oklahoma to retain them instead of adopting revisions grounded more in ideological commitments than in solid historical scholarship.

• Political resistance includes concerns over the cost of adopting new textbooks, updating curricula, training teachers, and possible disruption in classrooms. Legislators have questioned whether the content, process, or both require reassessment. 

What Actually Keeps the Old Curriculum in Place

Putting together the above, here are the concrete mechanisms or facts that ensure the old curriculum continues:

1. Court Order
   The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s temporary injunction requires maintenance of the 2019 standards until the legal challenge is fully heard and resolved. Schools are legally bound to follow that order. 

2. Standards Review Cycle & Legislative Approval
   Even with proposed new standards drafted, they must pass through the legislature, be reviewed, and become legally adopted before schools can shift to them. That hasn’t fully happened. 

3. Budget, Textbook & Resource Lag
   Implementing new standards is not simply passing a law; it requires buying or revising textbooks, teacher training, updating instructional materials—all of which take time and funding. Until those logistics are resolved, schools inevitably stay with the old standards.

4. Public Input and Potential Revisions
   Because the new standards underwent public comment (for example, through January 21, 2025) and have been criticized, there is a possibility that further revisions or modifications will be required—meaning the proposed new standards aren’t finalized in their controversial form. 

Implications of Staying with the Old Curriculum

The continued use of the 2019 standards has several practical and philosophical implications.

• Stability in Teaching: Teachers, districts, and schools have settled into the existing standards. Staying with them avoids sudden disruption—new materials, teacher training, administrative confusion.

• Continuity for Students: Students who have already started with the old standards will not have delayed or reworked instruction, which could otherwise affect learning outcomes or assessment consistency.

• Preservation of Historical Scholarship: As critics claim, the old standards are viewed by many historians and scholars as more balanced and historically accurate, avoiding the risk of ideological bias in presenting sensitive topics like religious influence, elections, or contested histories.

• Legal and Constitutional Safeguards: The old standards were adopted without the contested content now being challenged. Until the legal controversies over religion, election claims, and constitutional implications are settled, the old standards provide a safer path with fewer constitutional risk exposures.

Counterarguments & Tensions

To have a full view, it’s worth noting the arguments for moving to the new curriculum, which explain why supporters are pushing so hard, even in the face of opposition.

• Advocates of the changes argue that the old curriculum has failed to sufficiently inspire “love of country,” civic knowledge, or understanding of America’s founding in a holistic way. They say the revisions will promote patriotism and a more explicit sense of national identity. 

• They also claim that including primary sources, religious influences, and historical leaders in more depth will give students a richer, more grounded education. 

However, these goals are weighed against concerns about whether the new standards distort or selectively present history, risk constitutional violations, and impose undue burdens (logistical, financial, ideological) on schools and communities.

What’s Likely to Happen 

Given all the legal, administrative, and political dynamics, here’s what seems most probable in the short to medium term:

• Old Standards Continue: Schools will continue using the 2019 social studies standards for at least the 2025‑2026 academic year, possibly longer, until court decisions are resolved and the new standards are fully approved and implementable.

• Potential Modifications: Even if the new standards eventually are adopted, they may be significantly revised, especially to address legal issues (church/state, accuracy around contested topics) and public input.

• Incremental Changes: Some districts may begin preparing for changes (e.g., teacher training, resource scouting), but broad implementation will lag.

• Ongoing Debate and Oversight: Legislative, judicial, academic, and community stakeholders will continue to scrutinize content, process, and impact—potentially leading to further legal challenges or policy adjustments.

Conclusion

Oklahoma students will continue learning under the old social studies curriculum because multiple systems—legal, procedural, budgetary—are actively preventing a switch to the proposed new standards. While reform is possible and being pursued, it cannot take effect until the necessary constitutional, legislative, and logistical hurdles are cleared.

In many ways, this is a case study in how educational reform intersects with law, politics, and values. It underscores that changing what students learn doesn’t happen overnight, especially when the stakes include constitutional rights and deeply held beliefs. For now, Oklahoma’s 2019 social studies standards remain the guiding framework for classrooms.