Below is a commentary piece from the December 19, 2007 edition of Education Week, describing how the high-stakes testing environment created by the No Child Left Behind Act is squeezing social studies education out of the curriculum in the elementary grades.
“Why We Need to Save (and Strengthen) Social Studies”
By Judith L. Pace
Education Week
Published Online: December 18, 2007
Published in Print: December 19, 2007
Commentary
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.
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.
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 2½ hours for
reading and language arts, 1½ 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 must now address inequality by improving the quality of teaching
and the curriculum in poor, segregated schools.
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.
Vol. 27, Issue 16, Pages 26-27
December 19, 2007 |
