2​

25​ Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching in the Era of Standardization

E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson
Social Studies as a School Subject
Social studies is the most inclusive of all school subjects. Stanley and Nelson, for example, define social studies
education as “the study of all human enterprise over time and space” (1994, p. 266). Determining what is included in
the social studies curriculum requires facing key questions about social knowledge, skills, and values, including how
best to organize them with respect to specific subject matters (e.g., history, geography, anthropology, etc.) and in
relation to the unique subjectivities of teachers and their students. Given this, it is not surprising that social studies
has been racked by intellectual battles over its purpose, content, and pedagogy since its very inception as a school
subject in the early part of the 20th century. The roots of today’s social studies curriculum are found in the 1916
report of the Committee on Social Studies of the National Education Association’s (N.E.A.’s) Commission on the
Reorganization of Secondary Schools. The final report of the committee, ​The Social Studies in Secondary
Education, i​ llustrates the influence of previous N.E.A. and American Historical Association committees regarding
history in schools, but more importantly, emphasized the development of “good” citizen- ship values in students and
established the pattern of course offerings in social studies that remained consistent for the past century. (See chapter
1 by Gregg Jorgensen for more on the history of social studies as school subject.)
Throughout the 20th century, the social studies curriculum has been an ideo- logical battleground in which such
diverse curricular programs as the “life adjustment movement,” progressive education, social reconstructionism, and
nationalistic history have held sway at various times. The debate over the nature, purpose, and content of the social
studies curriculum continues today, with competing groups variously argu-
© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany
26 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

ing for a “social issues approach,” the “disciplinary study of history and geography,” or action for social justice as the
most appropriate framework for the social studies curriculum (see Evans, 2004; Hursh & Ross, 2000; Thornton, 2004).
As with the curriculum field in general, social studies curriculum has historically been defined by a lack of strong
consensus and contentiousness over its goals and methods.
But there has been at least superficial agreement that the purpose of social studies is “to prepare youth so that
they possess the knowledge, values, and skills needed for active participation in society” (Marker & Mehlinger, 1992, p.
832), but the content and pedagogies of social studies education have been greatly affected by various social and political
agendas. What does it mean to be a “good citizen”? Arguments have been made that students can develop “good
citizenship” not only through the long-privileged study of history (Whelan, 1997), but also through the examination of
contemporary social problems (Evans & Saxe, 1996), public policy (Oliver & Shaver, 1966), social roles (Superka &
Hawke, 1982), social taboos (Hunt & Metcalf, 1968), or by becoming astute critics of one’s society (Engle & Ochoa,
1988).

Competing Viewpoints within Social Studies Education

Because of the diversity of viewpoints on the meaning of citizenship education— and thus diversity in the purposes,
content, and pedagogy of social studies educa- tion—social studies educators have devoted considerable attention to
identifying categories and descriptions of the major traditions with the field. Various schemes have been used by
researchers to make sense of the wide-ranging and often con- flicting purposes (Vinson, 1998). The most influential of
these was developed by Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1977), who grouped the various positions on the social studies
curriculum into three themes: cultural transmission, social science, and reflective inquiry. Martorella’s (1996) framework
extends the work of Barr, Barth, and Shermis, and includes social studies education as: (1) citizenship transmission; (2)
social science; (3) reflective inquiry; (4) informed social criticism; and (5) personal development. Each perspective is
briefly summarized below.

SOCIAL STUDIES AS CITIZENSHIP (OR CULTURAL) TRANSMISSION

In this tradition, the purpose of social studies education is to promote student acquisition of certain nationalistic or
“democratic” values via the teaching and learning of discrete, factual pieces of information drawn primarily from the
canon of Western thought and culture. Content is based on the beliefs that: certain factual information is important to the
practice of good citizenship; the nature of this information remains relatively constant over time; and this information is
best determined by a consensus of authorities and experts. From this perspective, diversity of experience and
multiculturalism are downplayed, ignored, or actively

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

27 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

challenged. Cultural and social unity are proclaimed and praised. In the curricu- lum, history and literature dominate over
such considerations as learner interests, the social sciences, social criticism, and personal-subjective development. This
per- spective has long been dominant in the field and has seen a resurgence (see, for example, recent revisions to social
studies curriculum in Texas and Florida (Craig, 2006; Foner, 2010).

SOCIAL STUDIES AS SOCIAL SCIENCE

This tradition evolved during the Cold War and directly out of the post-Sputnik effort of social scientists to have a say in
the design, development, and implementa- tion of the social studies curriculum. From this viewpoint, each individual
social discipline (e.g., political science, history, economics, geography) can be considered in terms of its own distinct
structure of concepts, theories, and modes of empiri- cal inquiry. In educational scholarship this idea was most widely
and successfully advanced by psychologist Jerome Bruner (1969, 1977) and curriculum theorist J. J. Schwab (1969); it
formed, in part, the basis for what became known as the “new social studies” (Fenton, 1966; Massialas, 1992).
In this tradition, citizenship education includes mastering social science con- cepts, generalizations, and processes to
build a knowledge base for later learning. Social studies education provides students with the social scientific content
and procedures for successful citizenship, and for understanding and acting upon the human condition in its historical,
contemporary, political, social, economic, and cultural contexts. In general, instructional methods include those that
develop within learners the characteristics of social scientists, characteristics indicative of conceptual understandings as
well as modes of strategic inquiry (e.g., an anthropol- ogy course might focus conceptually on “culture” and
methodologically on “eth- nography,” as was the case with the curriculum project Man: A Course of Study).​1 ​Social
studies scholars have recently moved away from the more traditional social studies as social science approach to
disciplinary structure and toward increas- ingly complex interrogations of the importance of particular constructions of
the specific social and historical disciplines. From this newer perspective, academics, teachers, and students all have
some understanding of the structure of the various social sciences that relates to how they produce, use, and disseminate
disciplinary knowledge. These ideas of disciplinary conceptualizations influence all individual modes of teaching and
learning. Thus, it is impossible to teach social studies accord- ing to any other approach without simultaneously
maintaining some structural comprehension of the knowledge and modes of inquiry of the various academic disciplines.
There are, however, competing and dynamic possibilities such that teachers and students may each possess a unique
 orientation. Within the social studies, much of this contemporary work has focused upon history education, and has
emphasized multiple, complex instructional approaches, constructivist

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

28 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

understandings of meaning, the production and interpretation of text, historical sense making, and interdisciplinary
conceptions of content (e.g., Seixas, 2004; VanSledright & Afflerbach, 2000).

SOCIAL STUDIES AS REFLECTIVE INQUIRY

This approach to social studies developed originally out of the work of John Dewey (1933), particularly his
sociocognitive psychology and philosophical pragmatism. From this position, citizenship remains the core of the social
studies. But unlike citizenship transmission, in which citizenship rests on the acquisition of preestab- lished values and
content, or social science, where citizenship involves the range of academic social disciplines, citizenship here stresses
relevant problem solving, or meaningful decision making within a specific sociopolitical context.
From this perspective, then, the purpose of social studies education is nur- turing within students abilities
necessary for decision making in some specified sociopolitical context (e.g., liberal democratic capitalism), especially
with respect to social and personal problems that directly affect individual students. This pre- supposes a necessary
connection between democracy and problem solving, one in which the key assumption behind this link is that within the
social-political system significant problems rarely imply a single, overt, and/or “correct” solution. Such problems
frequently require decisions between several perceived good solutions and/ or several perceived bad solutions.
Democracy thus necessitates a citizenry capable of and competent in the identification of problems, the collection,
evaluation, and analysis of data, and the making of reasoned decisions. Dewey’s work on democratic reflective thinking
led to the evolution of a powerful pragmatic theory of educa- tion, prominent during the early to middle post–World War
II era, spearheaded in social education by Hunt and Metcalf (1968) and Engle (1987). The continu- ing influence of this
tradition in social studies is found in works by authors such as Evans and Saxe (1996) and Ross (1994). By carrying
forward Dewey’s legacy, these scholars offer an alternative to the social sciences per se and to contemporary “back to
basics” movements, one grounded in reflective decision making centered on so-called closed areas or taboo topics
representing a precise time and place—or, more precisely, problem solving within a specific sociopolitical context.

SOCIAL STUDIES AS INFORMED SOCIAL CRITICISM

This framework is rooted in the work of social reconstructionists (Brameld, 1956; Counts, 1932) and related to the more
recent work of “socialization-counterso- cialization” theorists (Engle & Ochoa, 1988) and critical pedagogues.​2 ​The con-
temporary literature primarily addresses themes such as the hidden curriculum, sociocultural transformation, and the
nature and meaning of knowledge and truth. The work of Nelson (e.g., 1985; Nelson & Pang in this volume), Stanley
(1985),

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

 29 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

and Hursh and Ross (2000) perhaps best represents the current status of this tradition. From this standpoint the purpose
of social studies is citizenship educa- tion aimed at providing students opportunities for an examination, critique, and
revision of past traditions, existing social practices, and modes of problem solving. It is a citizenship education directed
toward:

Social transformation [as] defined as the continuing improvement of . . . society by applying social criticism
and ethical decision making to social issues, and using the values of justice and equality as grounds for
assessing the direction of social change that should be pursued. (Stanley & Nelson, 1986, p. 530)

Social studies content in this tradition challenges the injustices of the sta- tus quo. It counters knowledge that is:
generated by and supportive of society’s elites; rooted in logical positivism; and consistent with social reproduction and
the replication of a society that is classist, sexist, and racist. While it is specific to individual classroom settings and
students, it can include, for example, redressing the needs of the disadvantaged, improving human rights conditions, and
stimulat- ing environmental improvements. Moreover, teachers and students here may claim their own
knowledges—their content, their individual and cultural experiences—as legitimate. Instruction methods in this tradition
are situational, but are oriented away from lecture and information transmission and toward such processes as “reflective
thinking” and the dialogical method (Shor & Freire, 1987), sociocultural criticism, textual analysis, deconstruction
(Cherryholmes, 1980, 1982), problem solving, critical thinking, and social action.

SOCIAL STUDIES AS PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

Focusing again on the role of citizenship education, this position reflects the belief that citizenship education should
consist of developing a positive self-concept and a strong sense of personal efficacy among students. It is grounded in the
idea that effective democratic citizenship involves understanding one’s freedom to make choices as well as one’s
obligation and responsibility to live with their ultimate outcomes. Social studies content is selected and pursued by the
students themselves so that it is embedded in the nature, needs, and interests of the learners. Instruc- tional methods are
shared between teachers and students, but include techniques such as Kilpatrick’s “project method,” various forms of
individualized instruction, and the Socratic method of dialogue. For, in essence, this approach evolved out of the
child-centered progressive education movement of the early 20th century and within the settings of humanistic
psychology and existential philosophy. Its best-known contemporary advocates include Nel Noddings (1992) and, in the
social studies, scholars such as Pearl Oliner (1983).

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

30 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

Social Studies, Curriculum Standards, and School Reform

Since its formal introduction into the school, social studies has been the subject of numerous commission and
blue-ribbon panel studies, ranging from the six- teen-volume report of the American Historical Association’s
Commission on Social Studies in the 1930s to the recent movement for national curriculum standards in the United
States. Virtually all of the subject matter–based professional groups in the United States undertook the development of
curriculum standards during in the 1990s. With the relative success of the 1989 National Council for Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) curriculum and evaluation standards, other associations, including a number in the social studies,
joined the movement with high hopes. There are separate and competing standards for U.S. and global history,
geography, economics, civics, psychology, and social studies. And these are just the national standards. There were often
companion state-level and, sometimes, local district curriculum standards as well.​3
The emphasis in school reform in North America for the past two decades has been the development of
“world-class” schools that can be directly linked to increased international economic production and prominence. In the
United States, this emphasis can be traced to the 1989 education summit in Charlottesville, Virginia, which gave rise to
the ​Goals 2000: Educate America Act s​ ubsequently passed by Congress in 1994 and endorsed by the National Governors
Association (Ross, 2001). And even farther back to the ​A Nation at Risk ​report of 1983. In that report, American
educational performance was linked to the decline in the “once unchallenged preeminence [of the United States] in
commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation.” The report focused on raising expecta- tions for student
learning. The National Commission on Excellence in Education encouraged states and local school districts to adopt
tougher graduation standards (such as requiring students to take more courses), extend the school year, and administer
standardized tests as part of a nationwide, although not federal, system of accountability. Every presidential
administration from Reagan to Obama has intensified efforts to reform education to serve economic needs as defined by
what is in the best interests of corporate capital. The primary tools of these efforts have been curriculum standards linked
to high-stakes tests (see, for example, Carr & Porfilio, 2011; Gabbard & Ross, 2008; Gorlewski & Porfilio, 2013;
Saltman & Gabbard, 2010; Vinson & Ross, 2000).
The term ​educational standards ​is used, though, in different ways. Kohn (2000) distinguishes between a
horizontal and vertical notion of standards. Hori- zontal standards refer to “guidelines for teaching, the implication being
that we should change the nature of instruction.” The emphasis in the NCTM Standards on problem solving and
conceptual understanding, rather than rote memoriza- tion of facts and algorithms, is a good example of this use of
higher standards. “By contrast, when you hear someone say that we need to ‘raise standards,’ that

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

31 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

represents a vertical shift, a claim that students ought to know more, do more, perform better.” The term ​standards ​is
therefore used to refer to both the criteria by which we judge a student, teacher, school, and so on, as well as the level of
performance deemed acceptable on those criteria (Mathison, 2000).
Vinson and Ross (2001) sum up what standards-based education reform (SBER) is. SBER is an effort on the part
of some official body—a governmental agency (such as the U.S. Department of Education or British Columbia Ministry
of Education) or a professional education association (such as the NCSS)—to define and establish a holistic system of
pedagogical purpose (such as ​Goals 2000​), content selection (such as curriculum standards), teaching methodology (such
as the promotion of phonics), and assessment (such as government-mandated tests). These intents combine such that: (1)
the various components of classroom practice are interrelated and mutually reinforcing to the extent they each coalesce
around the others, and (2) performance is completely subsumed by the assessment com- ponent, which serves as the
indicator of relative success or failure.
There are a number of assumptions underlying the invocation of stan- dards-based educational reform:

• Students do not know enough;

 • Curriculum standards and assessment will lead to higher achievement;

• Standards are necessary to ensure national/state/provincial competi- tiveness in world markets;

• Federal guidance and local control can coexist;

• Centralized accountability and bottom-up initiative and creativity are coherent aims;

• Standardization will promote equal educational opportunity;

• “Experts” from outside the classroom are best positioned to deter- mine what ought to be taught and how in
schools.

These assumptions, generally untested and without much supporting evidence, are shared by many along the political
spectrum, creating a strong pro-standards alliance.

Social Studies Curriculum Standards

While in most subject matter areas there has been a univocal call for and representa- tion of curriculum standards, in
social studies there are no fewer than six sponsors of curriculum standards and ten standards documents competing to
influence the content and pedagogy of social education.​4

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

32 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

The most generic curriculum standards are those created by the National Council for the Social Studies
(originally released in 1994 and revised in 2010). As indicated earlier, these standards seek to create a broad framework
of themes within which local decisions can be made about specific content. Specifically, the ten thematic strands are the
following:

• Culture

• Time, Continuity, and Change

• People, Places, and Environment

• Individual Development and Identity

• Individuals, Groups, and Institutions

• Power, Authority, and Governance

• Production, Distribution, and Society

• Science, Technology, and Society

• Global Connections

• Civic Ideals and Practices

 In contrast, the history standards prepared by the National Center for His- tory in Schools, are much more
specific, especially for grades 5–12, and provide a sense both of how children should think (historically) and about what.
Contrast both the NCSS and the history standards with those published by the American Psychological Association for
the teaching of high school psychology. These stan- dards mimic the study of psychology at the collegiate level,
including a focus on research methods and the subdisciplines of psychology.​5 ​None of these standards documents
accounts for the others—each is a closed system that maintains the particular discipline intact. In addition, these multiple
sets of standards, when com- bined with state/provincial curriculum documents, identify too many educational outcomes
to be taught and learned in the time allocated, what Popham (2004) identifies as one of the fatal mistakes of SBER.

Implementing Standards-Based Reform through High-Stakes Testing

Advocating higher standards (either vertical or horizontal) makes a difference only if there is a clear sense of how we
will know if higher standards have been attained. The single most critical, even overwhelming, indicator used in SBER is
standard- ized tests, especially high-stakes tests. High-stakes tests are those for which there are real consequences—such
as retention, required summer school, graduation,

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

33 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

pay increases, budget cuts, district takeovers—for students, teachers, and schools (see Heubert & Hauser, 1998). In
virtually every state, the adoption of higher standards has been accompanied by the creation of high-stakes standardized
tests or changes to exiting testing programs that make them high-stakes.
The frequency with which standardized tests are employed and the faith in their power to reform schools,
teaching, and learning seem ironic. Nonetheless, even the most prominent of educational measurement experts judge the
ever more sophisticated testing technology as inadequate for most of the purposes to which it is put, a refrain heard from
an ever enlarging group (Mathison & Ross, 2008; Mehrens, 1998; Popham, 2004; Sacks, 1999). As one of the world’s
leading educational measurement experts summarized,

As someone who has spent his entire career doing research, writing, and thinking about educational testing
and assessment issues, I would like to conclude by summarizing a compelling case showing that the major
uses of tests for student and school accountability during the past fifty years have improved education and
student learning in dra- matic ways. Unfortunately, this is not my conclusion. Instead, I am led to conclude
that in most cases the instruments and technology have not been up to the demands that have been placed on
them by high-stakes accountability. Assessment systems that are useful monitors lose much of their
dependability and cred ibility for that purpose when high stakes are attached to them. The unintended
negative effects of high-stakes accountability uses often outweigh the intended positive effects. (Linn, 2000,
p. 14)

As Popham (2008) notes, this failure is often a result of schools using the wrong tests in a SBER context, either
norm-referenced tests or state standards tests that include a smattering of all standards in a subject area. Both types are
what Popham calls “instructionally insensitive.”
 The Common Core State Standards

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are the most recent incarnation of curriculum documents that define what
will be taught and how it will be taught in schools. CCSS reflects the same language and concerns as other SBER efforts
with an emphasis on “world class” standards, 21st-century skills, and a logic that sees schools as serving the needs of
corporate capitalism at the expense of educating individuals to contribute to the commonwealth. CCSS also creates new
markets to be exploited by corporations. As Au (2013) explains,

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

34 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

There is certainly money to be made. Some conservative groups like the Pioneer Institute and American
Principles Project suggest a mid-range estimation that the CCSS implementation will cost $15.8 billion over
seven years: $1.2 billion for assessments, $5.3 billion for professional development, $6.9 billion for tech
infrastructure and support (Account- ability Works, 2012). The Fordham Institute predicts the CCSS could
cost $12.1 billion over the next 1–3 years (Murphy, Regenstein, & McNamara, 2012). Given this potential
market for private industry, it is not surprising that ​The New York Times r​ eports venture capital invest- ment
in public education has increased 80% since 2005 to a total of $632 million as of 2012 (Rich, 2013). The
development of the CCSS and the consequent rolling out of assessments, preparation materials, professional
development, and other CCSS-related infrastructure fits quite well with the neoliberal project of reframing
public education around the logics of private businesses (Apple, 2006) as well as the shifting of public
monies into the coffers of for-profit corporations through private contracts (Burch, 2009).

Some educators claim the Common Core offers a more progressive, stu- dent-centered, constructivist approach
to learning as opposed to the “drill and kill” test prep and scripted curriculum of NCLB classrooms (Au, 2013; The
Trouble with the Common Core, 2013). But as the editors of ​Rethinking Schools ​point out, these advantages will likely
disappear once the tests for the Common Core arrive. CCSS are for all intents and purposes, NCLB 2.0, with the closing
the achievement gap rhetoric removed (Au, 2013).

We have seen this show before. The entire country just finished a decade-long experiment in
standards-based, test-driven school reform called No Child Left Behind. NCLB required states to adopt
“rigor- ous” curriculum standards and test students annually to gauge progress towards reaching them. Under
threat of losing federal funds, all 50 states adopted or revised their standards and began testing every student,
every year in every grade from 3–8 and again in high school. (Before NCLB, only 19 states tested all kids
every year, after NCLB all 50 did.) (The Trouble with the Common Core, 2013, para 8)

CCSS are the product of the same coalition that produced previous SBER efforts—the major U.S. political
parties, corporate elites, for-profit education com- panies, and the U.S. teacher unions, along with most cultural
conservatives and not a few supposed liberal progressives. Despite the name, the Common Core State Standards are
top-down, national standards written by Gates Foundation–funded
 © 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany
35 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

consultants for the National Governors Association, designed to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a
national curriculum and create a perfect storm for the testing and curriculum corporations, such as Pearson.​6

[T]he Common Core State Standards Initiative goes far beyond the content of the standards themselves. The
initiative conflates standards with standardization. For instance, many states are mandating that school
districts select standardized student outcome measures and teacher evaluation systems from a pre-established
state list. To maxi- mize the likelihood of student success on standardized measures, many districts are
requiring teachers to use curriculum materials produced by the same companies that are producing the testing
instruments, even predetermining the books students will read on the basis of the list of sample texts that
illustrate the standard. The initiative compartmental- izes thinking, privileges profit-making companies,
narrows the creativity and professionalism of teachers, and limits meaningful student learning. (Brooks &
Dieta, 2012/2013, p. 65)

Despite the frequently repeated claims that standards-based education reform is a key factor in improving the
economy there is “no independently affirmed data that demonstrate the validity of the standards as a vehicle to improve
economic strength, build 21st-century skills, or achieve the things they claim are lacking in the current public school
system” (Teienken, 2011, p. 155). And, there is no research or experience to justify the claims being made for the ability
of CCSS to ensure that students are college- and career-ready, which is not surprising as evidence illustrates that NCLB
reforms were a colossal failure even when judged on their own distorted logic (Saltman, 2012; Stedman, 2010; 2011). As
Au (2013) points out:

Simply put, there is a severe lack of research evidence that increased standards correlate with increases in
test scores and achievement gener- ally (Guisbond et al., 2012; National Research Council, 2011; Weiss &
Long, 2013), and a similar lack of evidence that increased test scores correlate with increased
competitiveness in the global economy—two of the central presumptions undergirding the arguments for
advancing the CCSS. (p. 4)

NCLB, Common Core, and Social Studies

NCLB has not been kind to social studies as a school subject. The NCLB emphasis on testing to meet “adequate yearly
progress” goals in literacy and mathematics

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

36 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson
severely limited the curriculum and instructional time in other subjects. Previous standards-based reform efforts have
produced “codified sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the
voices, con- cerns, and realities of our students and communities” (The Trouble with the Com- mon Core, 2013, para
18). In his incisive critique of CCSS, Au (2013) describes two trends regarding social studies. First, under NCLB, there
has been a broad reduction in the teaching of social studies “as schools increased the time spent on tested subjects,
non-tested subjects like social studies were increasingly reduced” (p. 6). ​Common Core State Standards for Literacy in
Social Studies/History (​ National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2010) exacerbates this trend, making social studies (and other subjects) ancillary to (the pursuit of higher test
scores in) literacy and mathematics (see, e.g., Gilles, Wang, Smith, & Johnson, 2013).

A striking aspect of the Social Studies/History CCSS is that they essentially exchange the pure content of
previous era’s ossified standards for a new focus on pure skills. While existing content-focused social
studies/history standards have never been particularly good, in exchang- ing pure content in favor of pure
skills . . . [CCSS] take the “social” out of the “social studies.” In some important ways there simply is no
“there” there. (Au, 2013, p. 7)

Singer’s (2013) assessment of CCSS puts it this way:

The sad thing is that citizenship, democratic values, and preparation for an active role in a democratic society
are at the core of many ear- lier state standards and are prominent in the curriculum goals of the National
Council for the Social Studies. But these are being ignored in the Common Core push for higher test scores
on math and read- ing exams. (para 10)

Drawing upon Joseph Heller’s ​Catch-22, ​Leahey (2013) explores the logic of standards-based education reform
and the ways accountability systems, perfor- mance standards, and market-based reform initiatives have degraded
teaching and learning in public schools. In his analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act and the Race to the Top fund, he
explores three dominant themes woven throughout Heller’s work and how they are reflected in standard-based education
reform: (1) the reliance on symbolic indicators of progress, (2) the irrational nature and dead- ening effect of bureaucratic
rules and procedures, and (3) the dangers of unchecked capitalism. Leahey argues that these reform efforts are not only
counterproductive, but eroding the democratic foundations of our public school systems and signal the “end of the art of
teaching.”

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

37 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

[The] curriculum, student assessment, and now classroom instruction have all been reduced to an
externally-determined list of skills, techni- cal knowledge, and compliant behaviors reinforced with
institutional rewards (i.e., grade promotion, merit distinctions, public recognition, job security) and
punishments (i.e., retention, remediation, public criticism, and termination). The bureaucratic structure
reduces the art of teaching to a series of artificial performance indicators that are used to represent “value” or
“quality.” These indicators are powerful bureaucratic devices that have reorganized schools and the very
mean- ing of classroom teaching around artificial constructs like “proficiency,” “adequate yearly progress,”
 “school in need of improvement,” and “effective and ineffective.” Within this system, state education depart-
ments continuously monitor fidelity and progress toward these abstract (and often meaningless and
unrealizable) goals. Reaching these goals is indicated through the act of reducing outcomes to simple
numerical indicators. (p. 9)

Leahey concludes that to maintain their autonomy and professionalism, teachers will have to find alternative
ways of organizing and produce a counter- narrative that not only exposes the failings of standards-based reform but also
offers meaningful alternatives. (See Leahey’s chapter in this book for more on creating curriculum alternatives.)
Standards-based education reforms have slowly and steadily transformed teaching from professional work into
technical work, where teachers have lost control over the process and pace of their work, a process Braverman (1974)
called “deskilling.” This detailed division of labor breaks down complex work into simpler tasks and moves special
skills, knowledge, and control to the top of the hierarchy, separating the conception of work from its execution and thus
creat- ing dehumanizing, alienating work. For example, teachers’ work is diminished as they lose control of the content
of the curriculum or how they might assess student learning (both of which are now dictated by governments or
indirectly via high-stakes tests).
Many teachers have internalized the ends-means distinction between cur- riculum and their work, as a result,
they view their professional role, at best, as instructional decision makers, not curriculum developers (Thornton, 2004).
What is clear from studies of teacher decision making, however, is that teachers do much more than select teaching
methods to implement curricular goals defined by people outside the classroom (see Ross, Cornett, & McCutcheon,
1992). Teacher beliefs about social studies subject matter and student thinking in social studies as well as planning and
instructional strategies, together, create the ​enacted curriculum ​of a classroom—the day-to-day interactions among
students, teachers, and subject mat- ter. The difference between the publicly declared formal curriculum (as presented

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

38 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

by curriculum standards documents) and the actual curriculum experienced by students in social studies classrooms is
significant. The enacted curriculum is “the way the teacher confirms or creates doubt about assertions of knowledge,
whether some opinions are treated as facts while other opinions are discounted as unworthy of consideration” (Marker &
Mehlinger, 1992, pp. 834–835). For example,

One teacher may proclaim that one of democracy’s virtues is a toler- ance for many points of view, but in the
classroom choke off views inconsistent with his or her own. Another teacher may offer no asser- tions about
the value of democracy, while exhibiting its virtues in his or her own behavior. (Marker & Mehlinger, 1992,
p. 835)

In the SBER era teachers must assert themselves and actively resist top-down school reform policies if they are
to recapture control of their work as professionals.

Resisting Standards and Testing

In the face of great enthusiasm for standards-based education reform and high-stakes testing there is a growing resistance
 movement. This resistance, like the support for SBER, comes in a variety of forms and is fueled by the energies of
parents, students, teachers, advocacy groups, and a handful of academics. The resistance to SBER is based on three quite
dis tinct arguments: (1) a technical one—the tests are technically flawed or inappropriately used; (2) a psychological
one—SBER’s reliance on external motivation is counterproductive and will lead to both lower levels of achievement and
disempowerment for teachers; and (3) a social critique of testing—testing is a social practice that promotes corporate
interests and antidemo- cratic, anticommunity values. Each of these arguments will be briefly summarized. For some, the
problem with using standardized tests to ensure high stan- dards is that the tests are not very good. There is plenty of
evidence to support this argument. The use of primarily or only multiple choice questions is prima facie a questionable
practice given the current understandings about how one can know what a student knows and can do. A multiple choice
item is a very limited sample of any knowledge and/or skill. Bad test questions (bad because there is no right answer;
because they are developmentally inappropriate; because they are impossibly difficult; because they are trivial; because
they are culturally biased; and so on) appear with regularity, often in newspapers and in the popular press.​7 ​The other
aspect of the technical argument is that high-stakes tests are mis- used. In a statement on high-stakes testing by the
National Research Council’s Committee on Appropriate Test Use, Heubert and Hauser (1998) describe the misuse of any
single indicator for decision making.

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

39 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

Any educational decision that will have a major impact on a test taker should not be made solely or
automatically on the basis of a single test score. Other relevant information about the student’s knowledge
and skills should also be taken into account. (p. 3)

While this has been a longstanding position within the educational measurement community, it has not been a
compelling restraint on policymakers in establishing high-stakes testing programs that flaunt complete disregard for this
standard of appropriate and ethical test use.
While the technical inadequacies and shortcomings of tests and test items are easily identified, this critique is
ultimately a shallow one. It is a critique that might send test publishers and SBER proponents back to the drawing table,
briefly. Technological advances that increase the quality and validity of tests and test items are often short-lived and
sometimes even rejected (Mathison & Frag- noli, 2006). Although much could be done to make tests better and to
promote responsible use of tests, “better tests will not lead to better educational outcomes” (Heubert & Hauser, 1998, p.
3). Attaining better or different outcomes is a much more complex matter than having ever more accurately and precisely
calibrated indicators.
The second argument underlying the SBER resistance movement is a psycho- logical one. The pressure to
perform well on high stakes tests leads teachers and administrators to adopt teaching styles and activities that depend on
an extrinsic reward structure. Research on motivation and academic achievement clearly points to a high correlation
between extrinsic motivation and ​lower a​ cademic achievement (Ryan & LaGuardia, 1999; Kohn, 1996). The corollary to
this is research suggest- ing that school reforms that increase student engagement in personally meaningful tasks and
build a sense of belonging in a community of learners are ones that lead to higher levels of academic achievement (Ryan
& LaGuardia, 1999).

With regularity, stories appear in the mainstream media of damage done to kids. For Debbie Byrd, a
 restaurant owner in Pittsfield, Mass, the call to arms came two years ago, when her son began suffering panic
at tacks and gnawed holes in his shirts over the state’s demanding fourth-grade proficiency tests. (Lord,
2000)

She turned 10 last week. Her bed at home lies empty this morning as she wakes in an unfamiliar bed at a
psychiatric hospital. Anxi ety disorder. She had a nervous breakdown the other day. In fourth grade. She told
her parents she couldn’t handle all the pressure to do well on the tests. She was right to worry: On the
previous administration, 90% of Arizona’s kids flunked. (​Arizona Daily Star, ​April 2, 2000)

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

40 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

When an East Palo Alto parent asked school district Superinten dent Charlie Mae Knight why there are no
whale watching field trips this year, Knight replied, “Kids are not tested on whale watching, so they’re not
going whale watching.” When the parent complained that whale watching doesn’t happen on Saturdays,
Knight shot back, “You mean to tell me those whales don’t come out on weekends? Listen, after May 2, you
can go (on a field trip) to heaven if you want. Until then, field trips are out.” (Guthrie, 2000)

School Board members will discuss today whether they should institute mandatory recess for all elementary
schools, in response to a campaign by parents to give their children a break between classes. Preparing for
Virginia tests had so consumed most Virginia Beach schools they had abandoned this traditional respite. The
notion that children should have fun in school is now a heresy. (Sinha, March 21, 2000)

And on a broader scale, damage to children is reflected in higher rates of children leaving school for GED
programs, increased dropout rates, increases in grade retention rates, and the creation of insurmountable hurdles of
educational achievement for English language learners, special needs students, and generally those who are living in
poverty (Mathison & Ross, 2008).
Test-driven reforms also have a negative effect on teachers’ motivation—rob- bing them of their professional
capacity to choose curricular content; to respond in meaningful ways to particular student needs; to set an appropriate
instruc- tional pace; and so on (Mathison & Freeman, 2003; Stephen Round, Providence Teacher, Quits, 2012). In
Chicago, teachers are provided with a script—a detailed, day-to-day outline of what should be taught in language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Lest there be any confusion about why this script is necessary, at the top of
each page is a reference to the section of the standardized test that will be given to students in a specific and subsequent
grades.
SBER constructs teachers as conduits of standardized curriculum delivered in standardized ways, all of which
are determined by others who are very distant from the particular circumstances of classrooms, schools, and
neighborhoods. A fundamental assumption of SBER is that deciding what should be taught is an unsuitable
responsibility for teachers. Ironically, or perhaps not, standardized cur- riculum and high-stakes testing directly
contradict efforts, such as shared decision making, to make schools more democratic, responsive to local needs, and sup-
portive of teacher development and reflective practice.
The other aspect to this psychological critique is the extent to which SBER and high-stakes testing ignore the
diversity of learning styles and rates among chil- dren. Ohanian (1999) captures the idea succinctly in the title of her
book, ​One Size

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

41 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

Fits Few. T​ his extreme standardization and universal application view is inconsis- tent with developmental psychology
(Healy, 1990), does damage to most students (Ohanian, 1999), and ignores the diversity of students, schools, and
communities. Finally, there is a social critique argument proffered in the resistance to SBER/ high-stakes testing
movement. This argument, while not disagreeing with the techni- cal or psychological arguments, suggests the interests
and values underlying SBER and high-stakes testing are what are at issue. In particular, high-stakes testing and the
standards movement in general are conceived as a broad corporate strategy to control both the content and process of
schooling. In most states as well as on the national scene, corporate leaders and groups such as the Business Roundtable
promote SBER in the name of reestablishing global competitiveness. The social critique of SBER suggests this support is
more about social control: control through the establish- ment of a routine, standardized schooling process that will
socialize most workers to expect low-level, mundane work lives that will cohere with the low skill level jobs that have
proliferated with globalization and increased technology, and control through the well-established sorting mechanism
provided by standardized testing.
A critical element of this social critique of high-stakes testing is an analysis of the values that are called upon by
the corporate interest, and which have appeal to many North Americans in general. These are values such as competition,
indi- vidualism, self-sufficiency, fairness, and equity.
While corporations (big business, including the education businesses of cur- riculum production, textbook publishing,
test publishing, and for-profit educational management organizations—EMO’s) promote SBER and the use of
high-stakes testing, parents, kids, and teachers “push back.” Grassroots groups of parents (such as Parents for
Educational Justice in Louisiana; Parents Across Virginia United to Reform SOLS; Coalition for Authentic Reform in
Education in Massachusetts; Cali- fornia Resistance to High Stakes Testing; Parents United for Responsible Education in
Illinois), teachers (such as the Coalition for Educational Justice in California), students (such as the Organized Students
of Chicago), and combinations of these constituencies (such as the Rouge Forum, Whole Schooling Consortium, and
Badass Teachers) have sprung up around the country. They stage teach-ins, organize but- ton and bumper sticker
campaigns, lobby state legislatures, work with local teacher unions, mount Twitter campaigns, and boycott or disrupt
testing in local schools. In recent years the resistance movement has mushroomed, and the spring of 2013 witnessed a
testing-reform uprising as students, parents, and teachers engaged in boycotts, “opt-out” campaigns, and walkouts in
Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Denver, and New York and other communities. Seattle teachers defied state poli- cies by
refusing to give a mandated test and were backed by parents and students, and they won. In 2012, Chicago teachers went
on strike over SBER policies. These actions demonstrate in dramatic fashion how effective organized resistance to SBER
and high-stakes standardized testing can be, but the battle continues as

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

42 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson
a part of long tradition of workers resisting the dehumanization of work and the workplace (Gude, 2013). There is
currently no more powerful force in education and schooling than the Standards-Based Education Reform movement. It
is a movement that enjoys both favor and disfavor across the political spectrum, as well as special interest groups
including social classes, ethnicities, and races. There is every reason to believe it will fail. This likelihood makes it no
less compelling as a force in contemporary educational reform.

Rethinking Teaching and Curriculum

Social studies teaching should not be reduced to an exercise in implementing a set of activities predefined by
policymakers, textbook companies, or a high-stakes test. Rather, teachers should be actively engaged in considering the
perennial curriculum question—What knowledge is of most worth? Social studies learning should not be about passively
absorbing someone else’s conception of the world, but rather be an exercise in creating a personally meaningful
understanding of the way the world is and how one might act to transform that world.
Thinking of curriculum not as disciplinary subject matter but as something experienced in situations is an
alternative (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988). This is a Deweyan conception—curriculum as experience—in which teachers
and students are at the center of the curriculum. Dewey’s image of the teacher and her or his role in the creation of
school experiences can be found in ​How We Think (​ 1933) and the essay “The Relation of Theory to Practice in
Education” (1964). He argued that teachers must be students of both subject matter and “mind activity” if they are to
foster student growth. The teaching profession requires teachers who have learned to apply critical thought to their work.
To do this, they must have a full knowledge of their subject matter as well as observe and reflect on their practice and its
social and political context.
The professional knowledge of teachers is theoretical knowledge, or what has been called “practical theories of
teaching.”

Practical theories of teaching are the conceptual structures and visions that provide teachers with reasons for
acting as they do, and for choos- ing the teaching activities and curriculum materials they choose in order to
be effective. They are principles or propositions that undergird and guide teachers’ appreciations, decisions,
and actions. (Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986, pp. 54–55)

Such theories are important to the success of teaching because educational problems are practical problems, defined by
discrepancies between a practitioners’ theory and practice, not as gaps between formal educational theory and teacher
behaviors (where ends and means are separated).

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

43 Social Studies Curriculum and Teaching

Problems of teaching and curriculum are resolved not by discovery of new knowledge, but by formulating and
acting upon practical judgment (Carr & Kem- mis, 1986). The central aim of curriculum work is to improve the practical
effec- tiveness of the theories that teachers employ in creating the enacted curriculum. This aim presents problems in that
sometimes teachers are not conscious of the reasons for their actions or may simply be implementing curriculum
conceived by others. This means that reflective practice must focus on both the explicit and the tacit cultural
environment of teaching—the language, manners, standards, beliefs, and values that unconsciously influence the
classroom and school environment and the ways in which teachers respond to it. As Dewey asserted in ​Democracy and
Education,

We rarely recognize the extent in which our conscious estimates of what is worthwhile and what is not are
due to standards of which we are not conscious at all. But in general it may be said that the things which we
take for granted without inquiry or reflection are just the things which determine our conscious thinking and
decide our conclu- sions. And these habitudes which lie below the level of reflection are just those which
have been formed in the constant give and take of relationship with others. (Dewey, 1916, p. 18)

Social studies teaching and learning should be about uncovering the tak- en-for-granted elements in our
everyday experience and making them the target of inquiry. Critical examination of the intersection of language, social
relations, and practice can provide insights into our work as teachers and uncover con- straints that affect our approaches
to and goals for social studies education. The teacher and curriculum are inextricably linked. Our efforts to improve and
trans- form the social studies curriculum hinge on developing practices among teachers and their collaborators
(colleagues, students, research workers, teacher educators, parents) that emerge from critical analyses of teaching and
schooling as well as self-reflection—the exploration of practical theories employed by teachers and the actions that they
guide.
In the end, the question is whether social studies education will promote citizenship that is adaptive to the status
quo and interests of the socially powerful or whether it will promote a transformative citizenship that aims to reconstruct
society in more equitable and socially just ways. Social studies teachers are posi- tioned to provide the answer.

Notes

1. Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) is a curriculum project from the 1970s, funded by the National Science Foundation.
Students studied the lives and culture of the Inuit of

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany

44 E. Wayne Ross, Sandra Mathison, and Kevin D. Vinson

the Canadian Artic to see their own society in a new and different way. Students were asked to consider the questions: What is human
about human beings? How did they get that way? How can they be made more so? The core curriculum materials included the Netsilik
Film Series, which captured a year in the life of an Inuit family and became an acclaimed achieve- ment in visual anthropology. The
curriculum, and particularly the films, became the subject of a major political and educational controversy in the United States. Print
materials from the project are available for noncommercial use at [Link] The documentary ​Through These Eyes
(Laird, 2004) examines the curriculum and the controversy it sparked and includes excerpts from the Netsilik Film Series. ​Through
These Eyes ​([Link] through_these_eyes/) and the Netsilik Film Series ([Link]
quentin-brown) can also be viewed on the Web site of the National Film Board.
2. Also important here are earlier works by authors such as Anyon (1979), Bowles & Gintis (1976), Freire (1970), and
Willis (1977/1981).
3. See [Link] for a substantial overview of these standards
at all levels.
4. Curriculum standard sponsors, documents, and Web sites: (1) NCSS: Expecta- tions of Excellence: Curriculum Standards
for Social Studies, ([Link]): (2) National Center for History in the Schools: (a) Historical Thinking Standards; (b) History
Standards for Grades K-4; (c) United States History Content Standards; (d) World History Con- tent Standards;
([Link] (3) Center for Civic Education: National Standards for Civics and Government
([Link] lications/resource-materials/national-standards-for-civics-and-government); (4) National
Council for Geographic Education: Geography for Life: National Geography Standards, 2nd Edition
([Link] (5) Council for Economic Education: National Content Standards in Economics
([Link] voluntary-national-content-standards-in-economics/); (6) American Psychological Asso-
ciation: National Standards for High School Psychology Curriculum ([Link] education/k12/[Link]).
5. Links to all these standards, and other standards documents can be found at:
[Link]
6. Between 2008–2012, The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gave out 56 grants totaling nearly $100 million for the
development of the Common Core State Standards (Au, 2013).
7. For examples of “stupid test items” see Susan Ohanian’s Web site: [Link] [Link]/show_testitems.php.

References

Accountability Works. (2012). National cost of aligning states and localities to the Common Core Standards. Boston: Pioneer
Institute. [Link] photos/Cmmn_Cr_Cst_Stdy.[Link]. Anyon, J. (1979). Ideology and United
States history textbooks. ​Harvard Educational Review,
49​(3), 361–386.

© 2014 State University of New York Press, Albany