Why We Need to Save (and Strengthen) Social Studies

Reply to all

Forward

Help

From:	Mark Previte [map44@verizon.net]	Sent:	Thu 1/3/2008 3:21 PM
To:	Al Cunningham; andrew Kuhn; Betty Corcoran; Brian Dugas; Catherine Dunkle; Christine Woyshner; David K. Trevaskis; don_imler@tigerwires.com; Ira Hiberman; JAMES KEARNEY; Jan Warren; Joseph Labant; Keith Bellinger; Leo West; Lorraine Sakoian; mjm37@pitt.edu; Ruth_Stas@hmco.com; Sharon Franklin-Rahkonen; Stephen Bullick; Stephen Kozol; Zeiders, Jeffrey; Berard, Stanley P.; Bernard Brogan; Carol Mickley; Celeste Burns; 'Charles Cross'; Christina Shorall; Clemmie Gilpin; Dakota Hurd; Daniel Paul Gray; Daniel Shelley; Daniel Thompson; David Huseman; Denise Meister; Dominic Cotugno; Dominic Scott; Doug Lynch; Eileen Wilkenson; Eva Travers; Fred Savitz; 'Geoff Haywood'; harriss@gse.upenn.edu; John Bleyer; John Schmalbach; Lewis Asimeng-Boahen; Maria Sanelli; Mark Mraz; Michael Byron; Michael Carbone; Michele Ohlsen; Nadine McHenry; Paul Moessinger; 'Priscilla Linden'; Rachael Bowman-Finley; Randall Miller; Renata Wolynec; Robert Agostino; Robert Shaffer; Ronald Lombard; Roy Boyle; Sandy McKee; Sara Fry; Sherry Wise; Sister Joseph Marie Carter; Soo-Chin Lu; Sue Cagley; Sue Wise; Susan Atkinson; Terry Blue; Tim Slekar; Walter Fisch; Werner Lippert; William Heitzmann; William Himmele
Cc:
Subject:	Why We Need to Save (and Strengthen) Social Studies
Attachments:

<html >

<head>

div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<h2>David:</h2>

<h2>This was posted on the NCSS webpage. Let’s get this on
the front page of our web site.</h2>

<h2>Why
We Need to Save (and Strengthen) Social Studies</h2>

As
first appeared in Education
Week, December 19, 2007. Reprinted with permission from
the author.

Commentary 
Why We Need to
Save (and Strengthen) Social Studies 
By Judith L. Pace

Amid
the chorus of much-needed criticisms of the No Child Left Behind Act, hardly a
note has been heard in the media about the “squeezing” of social
studies, a significant consequence of the pressure to raise test scores in
reading and mathematics. Only a tiny body of published research on the problem
exists, but it, along with widespread anecdotal evidence, indicates that
high-stakes accountability based on reading and math scores is marginalizing
the social studies curriculum in elementary schools.

Surveys
have reported reduced instructional time in various states, and organizations
such as the National Council for the Social Studies have responded with letters
and statements to Congress. Social studies educators have begun to lobby their
lawmakers. But the apparent mainstream acceptance of drastic reductions in the
amount of time and attention given to one of elementary education’s core
academic subjects is shocking. We are in danger of losing a generation of
citizens schooled in the foundations of democracy—and of producing high
school graduates who are not broadly educated human beings.

In
my own state of California, where history/social studies is not tested until
8th grade, this trend began with the state’s Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999, and has accelerated with the No Child Left Behind
law. The social studies squeeze occurs disproportionately in low-performing
schools with large minority and low-income populations that are under intense
pressure to raise scores. And this, too, has alarming implications for
educational opportunity and civic participation.

In
one of the few qualitative research studies on this topic, the University of California,
Riverside, researcher John S. Wills examined the
dilemmas faced by teachers in a poor, rural school in California when social studies instruction
was curtailed by high-stakes-testing demands in other subjects. He found that
teachers managed these dilemmas differently, but with a common consequence:
Elements of thoughtful teaching were eradicated. Wills asks whether the drive
for accountability is leading not only to lost content knowledge, but also, and
paradoxically, to the elimination of thoughtful, student-centered instruction
“disproportionately from the education of poor students and students of
color.”

Anecdotal
evidence is disturbing, and cries out for more systematic investigation. Some
large school districts in California
and other states have now virtually eliminated social studies instruction from
all of their elementary schools, and some middle schools. Many students are not
getting social studies instruction until the 10th grade. Teacher-educators,
including myself and colleagues at other institutions, have discovered that
elementary school preservice candidates are not having an opportunity to
observe or practice social studies teaching. Especially in schools where
teachers are required to spend more hours on reading and math, often using
scripted programs, little time is left for social studies. With the advent in California of science
testing in the 5th grade, this subject, too, will trump social studies.

This
past spring, I interviewed 5th grade teachers in three Northern
 California districts about the teaching of social studies for a
small pilot study. My sample was skewed, because many teachers in
low-performing schools declined the invitation to talk and I purposely
recruited teachers who love history. Still, the interviews were revealing, and
may hold some significance for other school systems nationwide.

In
the suburban, high-performing district I studied, teachers reported that
history is a centerpiece of the curriculum. Although this district≠s
report card de-emphasizes history-social science, its teachers are free to give
the subject area priority in their classrooms.

The
other two districts in my study were urban, with a wide range of schools represented.
Teachers at these districts≠ low-performing schools talked about the huge
difficulty of teaching social studies in the face of such daily curricular
requirements as 2.5 hours for reading and language arts, 1.5 hours for math,
and a half-hour for English-language development. Teachers at high-performing
schools, meanwhile, spoke of having some flexibility in making curricular
decisions because of their high test scores. District mandates need not apply,
it appears, in better-performing schools.

In
essence, the data point to a social studies divide, caused by the confluence of
high-stakes accountability and school segregation by race and class.

Perennial
debates over whether social studies is even a valid academic subject are an
unfortunate distraction. The social studies wars, though real enough in
academia, are irrelevant to schoolteachers and their students. At the
elementary level, the social studies curriculum is, appropriately, an
integration of history, geography, economics, sociology, anthropology, and
political science. And California’s
standards for “history-social science,” while flawed, constitute a
serious and substantive document.

Why
must we save social studies education for all students? A voluminous
literature, written by scholars, curriculum makers, and practitioners alike,
speaks convincingly to that question. I will only add—at the risk of
repeating bad news—that, internationally, public opinion of the United States,
both its government and its people, worsens every day. The domestic and
international issues facing us are so complex and pressing that, to preserve
democracy as we know it, citizens must have some depth of historical,
political, and cultural understanding. Making good decisions requires that.
It’s one thing to have a nation of diverse opinions, which is crucial for
democracy, but opinion before knowledge, or without tolerance, leads to demise.
We≠ve seen more than enough evidence of that in recent years.

Granted,
social studies education historically has had its problems. The quality of
instruction and students’ attitudes toward the subject often have been
found lacking. In many classrooms, teachers rely on textbooks and lectures that
trivialize, even distort, the subject matter. But examples of excellent social
studies education also are abundant.

We
need not only to save, but to strengthen social studies education. Many argue
that young people today are not educated to care about political matters,
understand complex issues, make informed decisions, and contribute to a just
society. Studies point to a glaring gap in civic knowledge based on test scores
correlated with socioeconomic background and race or ethnicity. While
ineffective school practices may fail to address the current realities of
students, especially students of color in economically disadvantaged
circumstances, throwing out the baby with the bath water is certain to
exacerbate the biggest evil in our education system—inequality.

The
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this year to disallow the use of race in school
assignments has set back progress toward racial integration. We must now
address inequality in other ways, the foremost being by improving the quality
of teaching and the curriculum in poor, segregated schools. We are cheating
already marginalized children if social studies is squeezed out of their
elementary school education. We also are setting up their high school history
teachers for failure. Worse, we may be paving the way for potentially dire
consequences for our democracy.

I
am not ready to support testing in social studies in elementary schools; we
need less standardized testing, not more. (Social studies is “high
stakes” in states such as Virginia,
and there the press for “cultural literacy” has turned elementary
school teaching into a coverage craze.) We need fewer mandates that dictate
classroom schedules and scripted curricula. Policymakers must understand that
subjects like social studies actually develop reading and writing skills in
meaningful and enriching curricular contexts. When teachers have resources,
such as time for planning and good professional development, many become
passionate and knowledgeable about teaching social studies, which goes a long
way toward engaging students in powerful learning.

For
now, however, the situation calls for educational researchers to carefully
document the problem, how it plays out in a variety of school settings, and
what its consequences are. As Stanford
 University’s Linda
Darling-Hammond says, we practitioners and scholars must educate our government
about how to educate our children.

Judith L. Pace is a professor in the University of San Francisco’s
school of education.

&nbsp;

Mark
Previte

38 Woodland Terrace

Duncansville,
 PA&nbsp; 16635

814.696.7990

<a
href="mailto:map44@verizon.net" target=_blank>map44@verizon.net</a>

================

Assistant
Professor of Secondary Education (Social Studies)

148B
Biddle Hall

University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown

450 Schoolhouse Road

Johnstown,
 PA&nbsp; 15904

814.269.7016
(office)

814.269.7084
(fax)

<a
href="mailto:previte@pitt.edu" target=_blank>previte@pitt.edu</a>

&nbsp;

</div>

</body>

</html>