The Accidental Death Of Social Studies 

David P. Daves
The University of Southern Mississippi

    The epitaph reads: ‘Here Lies Social Studies: Born November 21, 1620 (signing of the Mayflower Compact) – Died January 8, 2002 (enactment of No Child Left Behind).’ The death was strictly accidental, but a death occurred none-the-less. Legislators had no idea they were voting to kill critical subjects from elementary schools curricula, but, unfortunately, that has happened. Three months prior to the accident, September 11, 2001, the United States had been attacked by terrorist. Suddenly, social studies was a living, breathing, organism that was being manifest daily on the news broadcasts. The importance of democracy and freedom was forefront on the minds of every American. Our heritage, our history was not something centered on vague names and dates that had long since past. History was unfolding right before our eyes. The parallel between the Trade Center attack and Pearl Harbor seemed obvious; the connection between World War II and the possibility of World War III was the focal point of many conversations. Our country was in turmoil. Government officials were consumed with decisions about war and the pressing issues of defending ourselves.
     Instantly social studies became the most important component in our schools curricula. Within a matter of a few minutes our nation and its history was changed forever and the importance of understanding that history was paramount. Some changes were very good. Suddenly our nation came together as “United States,” helping each other in ways never seen before. Instantly, crime rates dropped, divorce rates plummeted and churches were full on Sunday morning. But, overall, we were a nation looking for answers.
     Then it happened! Signed into law late in 2001 to be enacted January 8, 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized under the name, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Based on four basic themes – Accountability and Assessment, Parental Involvement, Research-Based Programs (including highly-qualified educators), and Flexibility – NCLB proved to be the most sweeping educational reform legislation ever passed. This powerful law forced schools and school districts to initiate educationally-sound practices that had not been done previously. Schools began looking at subgroups within their buildings to determine how students of different races, or socio-economic status performed when compared to other groups. Parental Involvement became more than just holding PTA meetings. Parents were to be notified of their child’s progress as well as the overall progress of the school attended. Anyone involved in the delivery of instruction, teachers and teacher-assistants, were to be highly-qualified. All of those requirements made the American public school system much stronger. However, the Accountability and Assessment component is a part of the law that turns all of the sensible elements of this massive piece of legislation into nonsense. It is this component of NCLB that has driven a stake in the heart of social studies, as well as other electives offered in our schools.
     The most evident manifestation of the impact of the Accountability and Assessment section of NCLB is seen in our public schools every day. Out of a sense of fear, schools began doing whatever it took to avoid being labeled a “failing school,” and being caught in the ubiquitous whirlpool of “school improvement.” That fear has forced schools to turn its back on critically important subjects such as social studies. This assertion is made based on personal experience as a school administrator, and a more recent encounter with my university classroom. Early in the semester in a social studies methods course I teach, a student innocently raised her hand and remarked, “Professor, you have given us many examples of teaching strategies and interesting possibilities for future lessons. But, the school I am observing does not teach social studies.” Instantly heads began nodding, and one-by-one the students confirmed the fact that when they asked the supervising teacher, the common response was “we don’t teach social studies here.” I could not believe what I was hearing, so I began to investigate. I discovered that many elementary schools across the country had abandoned one of the most important disciplines in our curricula.
     The obvious question was ‘WHY?’ What would convince schools to declare that the social sciences are unimportant -- that there is no place for history, economics, geography, and civics in our elementary schools? Why would a principal or teacher view one of the cornerstones of our educational system to be insignificant to the point of declaring ‘we don’t do that in this building?’
     The answer lies in a single word that has become the search-engine for all we do in schools. TESTS! The American educational system has become a test-driven machine. There is nothing necessarily wrong with test-driven curricula until vital subjects like social studies are eliminated because they aren’t tested. In an attempt to make schools “better” the federal government has, in fact, accidentally killed subjects like social studies. Hear my rationale. No Child Left Behind has received great criticism from educators since local school districts were blind-sided by its passage in 2001. Some educators argue the legal issue of federal involvement in state matters such as education. That argument is solidified by the mandate that all students must be tested age and grade appropriate as required by the Accountability and Assessment component of NCLB. Schools are taking drastic steps to meet the incredibly demanding assertion made by this legislation that all students will perform on grade-level by the year 2014. Therefore, it is important to consider the root of the federal influence on public education.
     The US Constitution makes no provision for “education,” so schools and schooling has been left to individual states to provide for the general public. Since 1777, Congress has passed several laws providing funds for various programs. But, the most comprehensive act that tied the President and Congress to the public schools was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA was created as a part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” in which he proposed a plan that allowed the federal government to appropriate funds to schools that would help level the playing field for the poor and low-income students. In 1965, Congress passed ESEA into law, and every five to seven years has ‘reauthorized’ federal dollars to be sent to states to assist schools in serving low-income students. Since its inception, it has been the largest single source of federal aid to K-12 schools. Because education was left to the discretion of the state, the federal government took the position that the primary focus of ESEA would be economic assistance to schools that needed it the most. In other words, Washington took a passive role in determining the effectiveness of federal dollars spent in schools.
     The law has gone through many changes over the past forty-one years, including several name changes. There was a period of time when ESEA was referred to as Title I, then Chapter I, and now Title I again. In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) reauthorized the major programs found in ESEA through the fiscal year 2003, making a comprehensive overhaul of programs governing the $12 billion-a-year investment in education. The cornerstone of the act remained improving education for disadvantaged children in poor areas. IASA called for high standards for all children, strong focus on teaching and learning, and contained a strong parental involvement component. For the first time since 1965, the concept of accountability became a viable topic. IASA provided for school-based initiatives and rewarded schools for creative use of their Title I dollars.
     In March 1994, PL 103-227, better known as Goals 2000: Educate America Act was passed as an amendment to the Improving America’s Schools Act. The foundation of this amendment can be traced back to 1989 when George H. Bush called the nation’s governors together in Virginia for a bipartisan “Education Summit.” At this meeting, the politicians created “goals” for the American public school system that were to be reached by the new millennium. Based on the premise that students reach higher levels of achievement when more is expected, Goals 2000 provided resources to states and communities to ensure that all students “reach their full potential.” This Act established a framework in which to identify “world-class academic standards, to measure student progress, and to provide the support that students need to meet the standards.” Goals 2000 stated, “By the year 2000:”

• All children will start school ready to learn.
• High school graduation rate will be at least 90%.
• All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated proficiency in core courses, and students will use their minds well, so they will be responsible, productive citizens.
• US students will be first in the world in math and science.
• Every adult American will be literate.
• Improved teacher force – all teachers will be highly qualified.
• Every school will promote partnerships to increase parental involvement.

     The year 2000 came, and obviously the goals had not been met. A primary reason is that “goals” are generally set at a level as to not be met. For example, any time the word ‘ALL,” or ‘EVERY’ is used, it is a clear indication that particular goal will not be accomplished. After all, ALL means ALL! Inevitably, some student who is not “ready to learn” will enter one of our schools. There will always be that one student in our school who does not “use their mind well.” A second reason Goals 2000 was doomed to failure is the vagueness of the expectations. What could it possibly mean for a student to use their mind well, and be responsible, productive citizens? We all have general ideas as to what that means, but no one can quantifiably determine if that goal had been met.
     The parallels between Goals 2000, IASA, and NCLB are apparent. One might assume that No Child is simply a reincarnation of Goals 2000 with teeth – that No Child is the mutant offspring of these two pieces of legislation. Not so fast! As previously mentioned, one major difference lies in the areas of accountability and assessment. More specifically, assessment; how are we measuring student progress? For the first time in our nation’s history, the federal government is demanding states and school districts to prove they are doing educationally-sound activities based on students’ performance. NCLB finally created a method for schools to show how the federal money received was assisting in student achievement. NCLB required schools to measure achievement in the areas of reading, mathematics, and language arts. Therein, lay the poison that has killed subjects like social studies in our elementary schools.
     Students in Mississippi take the Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) at the end of the second through the eighth grades. This practice will change in 2007 when Mississippi will test only grades three through eight as required by No Child Left Behind. The MCT is designed to measure student progress in reading, mathematics, and language arts. Because there is no “Social Studies” section on the test, a trend has developed so that schools have eliminated that discipline from the curricula. As a social scientist, this concerns me greatly. My question is ‘how do you not teach social studies?’ Every day children from every walk of life are thrown into a relatively small place and are forced to socially interact. That’s social studies! Every day these same students are forced to understand concepts like democracy, freedom, justice, and equality as they learn to live with the different challenges they face at school. As our students share materials, eat together, share restrooms, etc. they are involved with social studies.
     The first order of business in addressing the abandonment of social studies is to decide what we mean when we use the term. The National Council for the Social Studies (1992) has defined social studies as follows:

Social Studies is the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.

By definition, every subject taught qualifies as social studies. “Social studies is huge, expansive, and overwhelming as it encompasses a broad range of topics and concepts that reflect people, places, and events of the past as well as the present. These topics and concepts reflect life, or social systems, and therefore become all-inclusive” (Schell, Fisher). Therefore, social studies require coordinated programs that address specific content standards taught by specially trained teachers at all grade levels. 

The Power Of Social Studies

     The lack of emphasis in the social studies in the lower grades is having a direct impact on in higher grades as well. Because of NCLB requirements, history is one of the areas in which states must determine “proficiency” levels for its students. Mississippi satisfies this requirement by administering a state-wide test to students at the end of the US History course usually offered in the eleventh grade. Since the Subject Area Testing Program began in the late 1990’s, Mississippi students have done very well on this test. In fact, US History has the highest percentage of students who pass than the other tested areas of Algebra I, Biology I, and English II. The scores on the US History test should make us feel good about what we are doing in our social studies classes. But, while serving as a high school principal, I always questioned the reliability of those scores as they relate to what students actually know. For instance, I am puzzled why and how 98% of our students can pass a test on material that, when asked just a few weeks later, they cannot answer. How could students do so well on this test, yet make well below the national average on the ACT or SAT. The debate in my mind centers on the issue of “Teaching vs. Coaching.” Are we teaching content or coaching students to the point they are able to harness just enough information at the right time to pass a test? The answer to that question can be found when we focus on the student rather than the teacher. What is the student doing – in contrast to the actions of the teacher? The answer lies in the learning process, not just the teaching method.
     We have all had those college courses where we discuss “theories” of learning. We studied Benjamin Bloom and his taxonomies in an effort to understand how teaching impacts learning, how the learning process happens, and how to move students from lower-level thinking to higher-levels. We developed exercises and tests to measure the so-called ‘higher-order thinking skills.’ Bloom developed his model in the 1950’s and 60’s. It caught on in the 70’s, and has been a mainstay in American school culture since. Other models have been introduced, and may take the place of Bloom’s taxonomy someday. Norman Webb’s Depth of Knowledge model is becoming the buzz word in Mississippi. The focus of these models is to help educators mark levels of understand (knowledge) as they present materials at different grades. The typical pattern identified in the models moves the learner through the process of acquiring knowledge, expanding that knowledge in some depth, and using the knowledge to build for future learning. For example, the first two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Knowledge and Comprehension, are levels of acquiring knowledge. The Application and Analysis levels allow the student to expand the knowledge they have just acquired, and the Synthesis and Evaluation levels theoretically allow the student to use their expanded knowledge so as to broaden their knowledge base.
     The same pattern of progression is found in Webb’s model. Working from the precept of four levels of thinking skills, Level 1 in Webb’s Depth of Knowledge begins with the same cognitive level as Bloom’s – Knowledge. Level 2 is a combination of Bloom’s Comprehension and Application; Level 3 addresses Analysis; and, Level 4 combines Bloom’s Synthesis and Evaluation. Again theoretical, both models are assisting the teacher in identifying where the student is on that road of acquiring, expanding, and using knowledge. Educators fully understand the importance of prior knowledge, and the scaffolding effect necessary to develop real depth. We understand the concept of using prior knowledge to build on as we present new information. What is missing in these models is the ingredient to all learning – the magic every teacher searches for when they start their day; that ‘hot’ button that exist in every student that triggers his/her desire to learn something. Social studies can provide that magical button!

Impact:

     Once I had the time to process the fact that our schools were taking the position that social studies was not needed, my concerns grew stronger. The events of our day that include shootings in public places, the disconnectedness that our students feel toward each other, the dehumanizing effect that society plays on the development of our children, and the general condition of world at-large, lead us to search for solutions that can be found in the Social Studies.
     I fear we will pay later in a more drastic fashion for not teaching Social Studies in our elementary schools until it is required for testing. In addition to understanding themselves, their families, their state and nation, our students have no option but to be global minded. Technology has suddenly made Earth an incredibly small planet. Knowledge in the areas of International Relations and Domestic Affairs are not just interesting for conversation, they are vital to our survival as a nation. As I began teaching seniors in college, I painfully realized these future teachers had a very narrow understanding of these social science concepts. I propose that lack of understanding to be the root as to why so many would disregard social studies as a “necessary” discipline.
     I began to realize my students lacked in general understanding of why and how social studies should be taught. When asked to define social studies, I got single-word responses such as “government,” or “laws,” or “geography.” Many of my students insisted their experience with social studies consisted of the three R’s: Read, Recall, and Regurgitate (Schell, Fisher). A few students remembered social studies classes being fun, while about the same number could not remember anything about social studies classes, especially in their elementary school years.
     To get a more precise picture of my students grasp of social studies, I began administering a “Social Studies General Knowledge” test to those entering the Senior Block (semester prior to student teaching). The test is comprised of 50 questions covering Civics, Economics, Geography, Domestic Affairs, International Relations, and a “General” category. The questions were taken from sample MCT 8th grade level, 9th grade Mississippi History sample questions, and 11th grade US History Subject Area Practice Test. To broaden the scope of the impact of the study, I administered the same test to seniors in other professional areas (Science and Technology, Music, Business) to determine if there was a difference between those in the field of education and those in other disciplines.
     Typical questions included on the test were:
                            What constitutional amendment gave women the right to vote?
                            What do the stars on the flag mean?
                            What are the three branches of the US government?
                            What was “Black Tuesday?”
                            What are the duties of Congress?
                            Name one right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
                            What did the Emancipation Proclamation do?
                            The Cold War involved the US and which country?
                            The Supreme Court is comprised of how many members?
                            US Senators terms are for how many years.

Results:

     253 seniors who are enrolled in a teacher education program in one of our state universities were surveyed. The scores ranged from a low of 18% (9 out of 50 questions) to a high of 60% (3 students got 30 out of 50 questions correct). The median (common score most received) was 18 with an average of 19.19. That means if I was to assign a “grade” on the test, everyone would have failed. In fact, everyone would have failed miserably. The average score of my students on a test that measured general understanding of America’s history was “38!” All 153 students involved in the survey had not been required to take the US History subject area test to graduate from high school. The Functional Literacy Exam (high-stakes test given to eleventh graders measuring basic reading and math skills) was still in place and was in the process of being phased out to be replaced by the Subject Area Testing Program. Other than the history they had during their undergraduate courses, these students had not taken history classes for possibly four or five years. So I excused their poor performance thinking the lapse of time to be the major contributing factor to their inability to recall social studies facts.
     As I stated earlier, as a former high school principal I constantly struggled with the accuracy of the assessment information we got from the results of our students scores. Everyone passed the test, but what did that mean? With that same question in mind, I decided to expand my study to include freshmen. Entering freshmen would be among the population in our university who would have been required to take and pass the US History Subject Area Test prior to graduating from high school. These students would be required to recall information that was covered less than two years past. 73 freshmen were given the same survey. The scores ranged from a low of 24% (12 out of 50 questions) to 66% (one student got 33 out of 50 questions correct). The median score was 20 with an average score of 18.90. Again, if I was to assign a “grade,” not even students who learned material less than two years ago would have passed. An interesting fact is the average score for this group was lower than the average for seniors who had not been exposed to this material for five years of more.
     Weakest areas identified were on questions regarding Domestic Affairs, International Relations and Geography. Both groups tested scored well below 20% in these three vital components of the survey. As educators we must ask ourselves how important is the understanding of domestic affairs to today’s students? Is the topic of International Relations an issue that is worth our time and effort? Why is it necessary to devote time to studying geography? What role could these areas play in assisting our student in understanding a world that seems to be in crisis? Can students fully understand the impact of these issues if they do not have a solid social studies foundation beginning in the elementary school?

Conclusion:

     Social studies is a unique discipline that readily allows teachers to integrate reading, mathematics, and language arts. Principals and teachers feel the pressure to insure their students can read on grade level. That pressure forces educators to choose between literature and history as though the two disciplines are in competition with each other. There is a comfort zone we enter when we assume reading skills are more directly addressed using literature. However, literature, both narrative and informational, is a powerful and essential tool in the social studies classroom. Bringing social studies into the literature classroom is easily done because they both deal with two of the greatest of all mysteries – time and human nature. Effective social studies teachers teach history as a story well told. Effective literature teachers use the same approach.
     Social studies enable the student to cross that invisible line that separates learning to read from reading to learn. A variety of reading genres are available to support the efforts in integrating social studies with other subjects. Reading objectives can be aligned with social studies objectives to engage students in effective learning activities that lead to achievement in both. Integrating reading and social studies enhance students’ understanding and appreciation of both content areas. Whether social studies is integrated into reading programs, or reading skills are developed during social studies, the process helps students see the purpose for learning how to read as well as the benefits of reading to learn.
     A strong social studies curriculum also allows schools to provide a balance between theory and practice. Students are given the opportunity to visualize participatory citizenship and that citizenship is not an abstract concept. Social studies allow students to become knowledgeable of the world, thus enabling them to seek solutions to many of its problems. Students are provided the opportunity to understand the balance between self-realization and self-regulation; that every person is unique and there are appropriate ways of blending that uniqueness to form a more perfect union. And, finally, social studies enables classrooms and schools to become a social setting filled with the potential for moral growth. A comprehensive social studies program is vital to our students; especially as we attempt to prepare them for an ever-changing world we call ‘the future.’ While social studies has been accidentally killed, it is imperative that schools find a way to resurrect this discipline. Students, educators, and society as a whole will profit from the effort.

References

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: new understandings about reading, writing, and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Brophy, J. (1992). Fifth-grade U.S. history: How one teacher arranged to focus on key ideas in depth. Theory and Research
       in Social Education, 20, 141-155.
Ellis, A. (2007). Teaching and learning elementary social studies. Boston, MA. Allyn and Bacon.
Martorella, P.H. & Beal, C. (2002). Social studies for elementary school classrooms: Preparing children to be global citizens.
       Upper Saddle River, NJ. Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mississippi Department of Education. (2006). Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition. www.mde.k12.ms.us.
National Center for Education Statistics. (April 1999). Statistical analysis report: Remedial education at higher education
       institutions in fall 1995 (NCES publication no. 97-584).
National Center for History in the Schools. (1996). National standards for history. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for
       History in the Schools.
National Council for the Social Studies. (1992). Curriculum standards for social studies. Silver Springs, MD: Author.
Schell, E. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching social studies: A literacy-based approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
       Pearson Prentice Hall.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind:
       A desktop reference. Washington, DC: Author.