He’s obviously a bright kid. He’s got good grades. It’s honors U.S. history, which is supposed to be rigorous, to prepare the kid for college studies.
But we’re drawing blanks from the kid on basic stuff: What’s the significance of 1776? Jamestown is in what state? Who was the commanding general of the American Revolution, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? During the Civil War, on which side did Robert E. Lee fight? Or was he that dude from the Revolutionary War? Was the 1849 Gold Rush in Texas or California?
During the practice tests, he’s got all the skills: Two-colored markers to analyze the reading passages, circles and arrows to show which parts are important to consider. He can break the test question and reading down into all the “proper” parts, it’s a testing procedure he’s been practicing since third grade. After 8 years, he knows it well.
But he’s not sure whether the British fought in the American Civil War.
It’s a composite picture, but not composite enough for any of us to breathe the relief sigh. Too many students I get in class do not have the basic facts down that they need to make sense of anything else in the history course — or economics or geography course — that they struggle in now.
Many of these students have good test scores, too. The test doesn’t phase them, but their performance is not what it ought to be. Instead of acing the annual state exam, they take a couple of hours and complain that it’s a stupid exam with stupid questions.
We’ve taught them “tricks” to analyze the test questions, but they don’t have the background in the subject that they should have in order to quickly answer basic questions. The tricks get them through an exam, but it’s a poor substitute for knowing the material.
How does this happen?
Many schools across the nation have shorted social studies. Confronting pressure to raise average school test scores, basic social studies has been cut back in elementary and middle grades (kids know that stuff anyway, right?). Social studies is crowded out of the curriculum in favor of testing skills, or instruction in science and math.
I suspect much of the instruction in science and math is similarly shallow. Students learn how to analyze the test question, but they don’t know how to do the math required.
We know that students learn more when they spend more time on the learning tasks. Learning time is reduced for testing skills instruction.
Social studies take the hit particularly hard. According to a commentary by Judith Pace of the University of San Francisco, in Education Week this week (subscription may be required):
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.
(More of Light’s commentary below the fold.)
One of the old saws of the quality movement in industry (now sadly abandoned in too many places) is “You get what you measure.” We measure average achievement. Consequently, we stifle outstanding achievement, and we don’t give most of the children the background they need to be good citizens.
I see it in students who just don’t know the basics. We should not need to spend time teaching that Abraham Lincoln was not at the Constitutional Convention, but was president during the Civil War.
Improving test scores may be hurting students’ core knowledge in essential areas.
What do we do about it? Comments are open, of course.
Why We Need to Save (and Strengthen) Social Studies
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.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 