“What ever caused history and geography (the two subjects in which Americans seem to be severely lacking) to be replaced by Social Studies?” As a social studies teacher by training (who mostly taught outside of the social studies area these past 30 years), I think constantly of this question.
History USED to be taught as a “grand narrative” giving students a global sense of when things happened, and what happened where, and WHY things were happening. That was apparently replaced by the “units” system in the early 1960s (the system I went through as a student). The unit system is far easier for teachers who lack sufficient background knowledge to teach the grand narrative, because with units, teachers can learn as they teach. Teaching with the narrative method takes far more reading, research, and thinking–maybe teachers, or even education as a profession just isn’t up to asking that of new teachers. The result of this has been that most younger Americans now know neither history, nor geography, compared with other countries, or even compared with earlier times in America.
Looking briefly at social studies standards from New York state (pre-Common Core), it is clear to see that even a student who mastered everything in the curriculum would still end up not knowing history or geography. What they would know instead is a large amount of disjointed information, such as feudalism, capitalism, the major religions, the neolithic revolution, etc., but without ANY sense of the narrative of history, nor any sense of the locations and boundaries of modern countries (geography), nor any sense of the cultures or modern thinking of these countries–much less, any of the history of those countries! Therefore, they are unprepared to understand those cultures, and countries’ behavior in the modern world.
Looking at the new Common Core Social Studies for New York State, the standards do a much better job. However, there is a new problem. The standards are so extensive that students rush through these time periods without seeing the overall grand scheme of things. The standards are heavily focused on reading original source material and pulling out facts for writing; in reality, those parts of the curriculum are actually LITERACY standards. Only the best students are able to measure up to these reading and writing standards. While I am highly in favor of helping students become more highly literate, not every student is able to attain this level of literacy. One of the reasons we will always need good teachers is that not every student is able to “teach themselves.” They need to hear the teacher’s thoughts, insights, and conclusions, in order to stimulate their own thinking and understanding.
One reason social studies has become focused too highly on facts, and less highly on analysis is that it avoids contentious discussions and political issues.
It’s easy and NON-CONTROVERSIAL to say, “This happened, that happened,” or read non-controversial facts in a text book. But all of the-important questions are side-stepped. “Why did ethnic cleansing happen here at this time?” “Why did the Salem Witch Trials happen? Could something like this happen again today? What similarities were there between the Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism in America, in the 1950s?” These are examples of the important questions in history, and the types of questions that inspire students toward critical thinking and an interest in history that will make its study useful in their lives. Unfortunately, questions and discussions of this type often get teachers in trouble with parents, principals, and school boards. So these important questions are mostly ignored, and students are usually given a barrage of facts, but often without the useful threads to tie them together.
It would be better to cover fewer facts and fewer original sources at the high school level. Students would be better served in their lives with general trends and principles looked at, which are then supported by fewer facts and documents; however those facts and documents used would be the most important. For example, we should be actually reading and discussing the Declaration of Independence point-by-point and how it relates to the world of today, compared to the world it was created in. We should be reading some writings by the founding fathers and discussing those writings, as well as the hopes and worries the founding fathers had for the future of our country. These are far more important than reading many obscure documents such as the private correspondence of a minor ambassador in a Middle Eastern culture of 1,000 years ago, that has little bearing on today’s events. Some things are just more important to know about than others.
Jumping from time period to time period, and civilization to civilization, is appropriate when we want to look at a general principle and see how it works in various societies. This style is less appropriate when we want to show cause and effect, or trends throughout generations. The old narrative method was far superior in helping students to remember what events happened, and why. It is also easier to remember a story than to remember disjointed events. What is really lacking in social studies education of today are the master teachers’ summaries for students, and discussions with students, of why we are studying certain facts and events, and what general conclusions we can learn from historic events to use for the future.
The National Council for the Social Studies (founded in 1921, just about the same time as the “narrative style” of history teaching went out of fashion) social studies promotes knowledge of, and involvement in, civic affairs. Instead of the old narrative method of studying history, they promote today’s curriculum standards which focus on ten areas:
1.) Culture
2.) Time, Continuity, and Change
3.) People, Places, and Environments
4.) Individual Development and Identity
5.) Individual Groups and Institutions
6.) Power, Authority, and Governance
7.) Production, Distribution, and Consumption
8.) Science, Technology, and Society
9.) Global Connections
10.) Civic Ideals and Practices
Most students now know a smattering about the above topics, but lack the cohesion to tie them together, and know very little about any particular society. This new form of social studies education has not made students more prepared to be good civic citizens. Returning to history as a narrative and studying more about the implications of world geography (rather than only studying names of countries and capitals) would be far better! Few of today’s teachers, however, would be able to teach in this manner.
–Lynne Diligent
Tags: Civic Ideals and Practices, Common Core Curriculum Standards for Social Studies iin New York State, creating good citizens through social studies, Culture, kniowing where countries are in the world, knowing countries and capitals, knowing states and capitals, National Council for the Social Studies, NCSS, New York State Curriculum Standards, teaching cause and effect in geography, teaching cause and effect in history, teaching high school geography, teaching high school history, teaching high school social studies, teaching literacy in social studies, teaching secondary social studies, the narrative style of teaching history, there is now too much focus on original documents in social studies, Why isn't history taught any more as a "grand narrative", why use original documents in social studies
Dilemmas of an Expat Tutor 
September 19, 2017 at 1:48 pm |
Having grown up and educated through the NYS education system of the 60’s and 70’s, I thought it was ridiculous that we would, from 3 Grade until High School graduation, flip back and forth from New York State History to World History, back to NYS, back to World, back to NYS, never getting deep enough to fully understand either. I think I would have been better served to go from local to County to Regional (not specific to State), THEN to State, Country, Continent, et al.