Did the Social Studies Really Replace History in American Secondary Schools?

Abstract

Background/Context In recent decades, professional historians have made considerable efforts to reestablish influence over the teaching of history in American schools. This movement has rested upon a generally accepted historical narrative based on four assertions; first, that during the 1900s and 1910s, professional historians dominated the curriculum of most public schools; second, that this control was usurped by the “educationist” authors of the 1916 Committee on the Social Studies; third, that this report recommended social studies courses that amalgamated history and the social sciences to address current events and problems; and fourth, that over the course of the 1920s and 1930s, these amalgamated social studies courses replaced “straight” history in most American schools. Purpose The author challenges each of these assertions directly to present a more nuanced, accurate view of these years. Research Design Previous studies of this topic have tended to focus on the correspondence among professional leaders and/or the ideologies of the compilers of the Committee of Ten, Committee of Seven, and the Committee on the Social Studies (CSS) reports. While the author touches on these topics briefly as they relate to the four assertions above, the focus of this article is on some internal and external factors that have been overlooked, such as teacher qualifications, the content of textbooks, changing course enrollments, and the effects of the First World War. Findings/Conclusions The author argues that the transition from history to the social studies at the secondary level was not abrupt and that the social studies reform movement did not directly target discipline-based history. More important, he demonstrates that, at least through the 1930s, history courses were never fully displaced by amalgamated social studies classes. Therefore, the degree to which history and historians were “replaced” by the social studies and its advocates have been exaggerated in the present literature, and the use of words like, “abrupt,” “disappearance,” and “educationists,” have been misleading.

Does Preparing Citizens Matter? Examining the Value of Civic Mindedness in Pre-Service Teachers

“…While there is near uniform agreement that the charge of social studies teachers is to impart on their students the knowledge and dispositions necessary for good citizenship (Fallace, 2008; National Council for the Social Studies, 1994; Nelson, 2001; Parker, 1991; Saxe, 1991; Stanley, 2001), the vagueness of what constitutes good citizenship in a pluralistic democracy requires that we delineate a range of conceptions of what it means to teach for citizenship. In informing our analysis of pre-service teachers’ conceptions of citizenship we rely on the framework developed by Westheimer and Kahne (2004) through their groundbreaking 2-year study of American civic education programs.…”

“…Researchers, however, have examined another related aspect of the inner lives of pre-service social studies teachers: how they conceptualize education for citizenship in a democratic society (see Avery & Walker, 1993; Castro, 2013; Gallavan, 2008; Kickbusch, 1987; Kubow, 1997; Martin, 2008, 2010; Mathews & Dilworth, 2008; Rubin & Justice, 2005; Sunal et al, 2009; Wilkins, 1999). This has been an important line of inquiry, as it is a long-held principle that the content of social studies curricula ought to be learned to engender democratic citizenship (Fallace, 2008; National Council for the Social Studies, 1994; Nelson, 2001; Parker, 1991; Saxe, 1991; Stanley, 2001). What remains unexamined, however, is if these civic ideals are in any way connected to pre-service social studies teachers’ desires to become teachers in the first place.…”

Social Studies Teacher Education in the Early Twentieth Century: A Historical Inquiry into the Relationship Between Teacher Preparation and Curriculum Reform

“…In fact, Fallace argues, numerous factors previously overlooked by most historians, including the content of textbooks, the impact of the First World War, and, most important for our purposes, teacher qualifications, all served to hinder the rapid expansion of social studies along the lines of the 1916 Report. 35 Fallace's brief coverage of the problem with social studies teacher credentials focuses mainly on the paltry quality of teachers in general in the first decades of the twentieth century. He asserts that most teachers around the time of the 1916 Report were deficient in subject matter and pedagogical training, inexperienced in the field, lacking in effort and imagination with regard to instructional methods, and mostly biding time until they could leave the classroom behind and settle into domestic life instead, given that the majority were young women.…”