Putting the Squeeze on Social Studies: Managing Teaching Dilemmas in Subject Areas Excluded from State Testing

Abstract

Background/Context

Recent research indicates that social studies is being “squeezed” from the elementary curriculum as instructional time is shifted to language arts and mathematics in response to state testing and the federal No Child Left Behind Act, especially in schools serving poor students and students of color. However, less is known about the specific curricular and instructional choices teachers make as they confront reduced instructional time for social studies, and the enacted curriculum resulting from these choices.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to analyze what happens to the enacted curriculum in social studies in elementary schools where instructional time for social studies was reduced in response to state testing in language arts and mathematics.

Setting

This research was conducted at a rural elementary school in Southern California serving poor Latino, African-American, and White students, a low performing yet improving school as measured by state testing in language arts and mathematics.

Research Design

A ten-month qualitative case study of social studies curriculum and instruction was conducted in one fourth-grade and two fifth-grade classrooms at one elementary school.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection consisted of observation and videotaping of classroom lessons and activities in social studies during the 2002-2003 school year in three teachers’ classrooms, consisting of a total of 125 videotaped observations. Interviews with teachers, students, and the principal, and the collection and analysis of student work and curricular materials supplemented this data. For this article, data analysis was based on the coding of field notes, analysis of transcripts of lessons and activities, and teacher interviews, to understand the curricular and instructional choices teachers made in social studies and the effect of these choices on the enacted curriculum.

Findings/Results

Reduced instructional time in social studies has resulted in a reduction of the scope of the curriculum, the curtailment or elimination of opportunities to promote students’ higher order thinking, and an increased emphasis at times on the simple reproduction of content knowledge.

Conclusions/Recommendations

The institution of a system of accountability meant to improve teaching and learning for all students is instead undermining the quality of students’ education in social studies, especially at low performing elementary schools serving poor students and students of color. As instructional time is shifted to language arts and mathematics the scope of the social studies curriculum and opportunities for thoughtfulness that would deepen students’ understanding of history are being squeezed from the enacted curriculum.

References

Armento

B. J.

, Nash

G. B.

, Salter

G. L.

, and Wixson

K. K.

(1991). America will be. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Brophy

(1990). Teaching social studies for understanding and higher-order applications. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 351—417.

Brophy

, and VanSledright

(1997). Teaching and learning history in elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cohen

, and Barnes

(1993). Pedagogy and policy. In Cohen

, McLaughlin

, and Talbert

(Eds.). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207—239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collins

(1992). Discourse style, classroom interaction and differential treatment. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 429—437.

Cuban

(1992). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 4—11.

Diamond

J. B.

, and Spillane

J. P.

(2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145—1176.

Dorgan

(2004). A year in the life of an elementary school: One school's experiences in meeting new mathematics standards. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1203—1228.

Drew

, and Heritage

(1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Firestone

, Mayrowetz

, and Fairman

(1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95—113.

11.

Goodlad

(1984). A place called school: Promise for the future. New York: McGraw Hill.

12.

Grant

S. G.

(2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York state on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 398—426.

13.

Grant

S. G.

, Gradwell

J. M.

, Lauricella

, Derme-Insinna

, Pullano

, and Tzetzo

(2002). When increasing stakes need not mean increasing standards: The case of the New York state global history and geography exam. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(4), 488—515.

14.

Gutierrez

, Larson

, and Kreuter

(1995). Cultural tensions in the scripted classroom: The value of the subjugated perspective. Urban Education, 29(4), 410—442.

15.

Heubert

, and Hauser

(Eds.) (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

16.

Hursh

D. W.

, and Ross

E. W.

(Eds.) (2000). Democratic social education: Social studies for social Change. New York: Falmer Press.

17.

Jackson

(1986). The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College.

18.

Manzo

K. K.

(2005). Social studies losing out to reading, math. Education Week, March 16.

19.

Marker

, and Mehlinger

(1992). Social studies. In and and Jackson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 830—851). New York: Macmillan.

20.

McNeil

L. M.

(2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.

21.

Mehan

(1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Music For All Foundation. (2004). Implementation of NCLB curtails study of history, civics, languages, & the arts, while expanding learning time for literacy, math, & science, new study says. Retrieved on July 20, 2005, from http://music-forall.org/CBESurvey.html

23.

Newmann

F. M.

(1990). Higher order thinking in teaching social studies: A rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(1), 41—56.

24.

Nystrand

(1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

Pascopella

(2004). Social awareness on the back burner: Withering social studies instruction in elementary schools has experts biting their fingernails, debating testing and seeking partnerships. District Adminstration, 40(12), 49—52.

26.

Popham

W. J.

(1998). Farewell, curriculum: Confessions of an assessment convert. Phi Delta Kappan, 380—438.

27.

Rosenholtz

S. J.

(1987). Education reform strategies: Will they increase teacher commitment? American Journal of Education, 95(4), 534—562.

28.

Rosenholtz

(1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.

29.

Ross

E. W.

(Ed.) (2001). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities. Albany: SUNY Press.

30.

Sandholtz

J. H.

, Ogawa

R. T.

, and Scribner

S. P.

(2004). Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177—1202.

31.

Shanker

(1995). The case for high stakes and real consequences. In and and Ravitch

(Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 145—153). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

32.

Smith

, and O'Day

(1991). Systemic school reform. In Fuhrman

, and Malen

(Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233—267). New York: Falmer.

33.

Taylor

, Shepard

, Kinner

, and Rosenthal

(2003). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost. CSE Technical Report 588.

34.

Thornton

S. J.

(1994). The social studies near century's end: Reconsidering patterns of curriculum and instruction. Review of research in education, 20, 223—254.

35.

Thornton

S. J.

, and Houser

(1996). The status of the elementary social studies in Delaware: Views from the field. ERIC document number 404 239.

36.

VanFossen

P. J.

(2005). “Reading and math take so much time. “: An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376—403.

37.

VanSledright

B. A.

, and Grant

S. G.

(1994). Citizenship education and the persistent nature of classroom teaching dilemmas. Theory and Research in Social Education, 22(3), 305—339.

38.

Von Zastrow

, and Janc

(2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America's public schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

39.

Wills

J. S.

(2005). Authority, culture, context: Controlling the production of historical knowledge in elementary classrooms. In Pace

J.L.

, and Hemmings

(Eds.) Classroom authority: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 33—62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.