High stakes accountability has intensified the marginalization of social studies in public schools. A popular response to the dilemma between raising achievement in English Language Arts and preserving social studies is to integrate the two subjects. This qualitative case study analyzes instruction in a fifth grade urban classroom where the teacher used U.S. history lessons to teach literacy skills and strategies. I conducted weekly classroom observations over a semester: interviewed the teacher, students, and administrators; and collected pertinent documents. Although two-and-a-haļf hours were devoted to social studies each week, I found that lessons revolved around literacy training based on reading passages from the textbook. These lessons became increasingly routine, distancing students from history rather than supporting their understanding of it. The teacher’s practice was influenced by standardized testing and professional development. This case study serves as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences that can result when literacy and social studies are combined with the goal of raising test scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfflerbachP.PearsonP. D., & ParisS. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.5.1
2.
AlexanderP.A.GrahamS. & Harris K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129-154. doi: 10.1023/A:1022185502996
3.
AndersonV. & RoitM. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6-10. The Elementary School Journal. (94)2, 121-137.
4.
AuW. (2007). High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
5.
BartoloméL. I. (1994a). Teaching strategies: Their possibilities and limitations. In McLeodB. (Ed.), Language and learning: Educating linguistically diverse students (pp. 199-224). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
6.
BartoloméL. I. (1994b). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 173-194.
7.
BislandB. M. (2011). The marginalization of social studies in the elementary grades: An overview. In RussellW. B. (Ed.), Contemporary social studies: An essential reader (pp. 173-191). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
8.
BolickC. M.AdamsR. & WilloxL. (2010). The marginalization of elementary social studies in teacher education. Social Studies Research and Practice, 5(2), 1-22.
9.
Boyle-BaiseM.HsuM.JohnsonS.SerriereS. C., & StewartD. (2008). Putting reading first: Teaching social studies in elementary classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(3), 233-255.
10.
BurroughsS.GroceE.WebeckM. L. (2005). Social studies education in the age of testing accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(3), 13-20.
11.
Center on Education Policy (2008, February). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
12.
FLBurstein J.HuttonL. A., & CurtisR. (2006). The state of elementary social studies teaching in one urban district. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(1), 15-20.
13.
DoleJ. A.NokesJ. D., & DritsD. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In DuffyG. G. & IsraelS. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347-372). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
DoyleW. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research53(2), 159-199.
15.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan.
16.
FisherD. & FreyN. (2008). What does it take to create skilled readers? Voices from the Middle, 15(4), 16-22.
17.
FreedbergL. (2011, October). Brown attacks testing and data as measures of school success. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louis-freedberg/brown-standardized-testing_b_1004248.html.
18.
FitchettP. & HeafnerT. (2010). A national perspective on the effects of high- stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114-130.
19.
GrantS. G. (1996). Locating authority over content and pedagogy: Crosscurrent influences on teachers’ thinking and practice. Theory and Research in Social Education, 24(3), 237-272.
20.
GrantS. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: The influence of state-level testing in New York State on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103(3), 398-426.
21.
GrantS. G. (Ed.) (2006). Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across the United States (pp. 249-272). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
22.
HarveyS. & GoudvisA. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
23.
HessD. (2008). Democratic education to reduce the divide. Social education, 72, 373-376.
24.
JenningsJ. & RentnerD. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 110-113.
25.
JonesB. F.PalincsarA. S., OgleD. S., & CarrE. G. (Ed.). (1987). Strategic teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
26.
KahneJ. & MiddaughE. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. College Park, MD: Circle.
27.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LintnerT. (2006). Social studies (still) on the back burner: Perceptions and practices of K-5 social studies instruction. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(1), 3-8.
29.
LukeA. (2010). Documenting reproduction and inequality: Revisiting Jean Anyon’s “Social class and school knowledge.”Curriculum Inquiry, 40(1), 167-182.
30.
ManiatesH. & PearsonP. D. (2008). The curricularization of comprehension strategies instruction: A conspiracy of good intentions. In KimY. & RiskoV. J. (Eds.). 57th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 271-282). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
31.
MasseyD. D. & HeafnerT. L. (2004). Promoting reading comprehension in social studies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26-40.
32.
MaxwellJ. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-300.
33.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
MetzM. H. (2008). Symbolic uses of NCLB: Reaffirmation of equality of educational opportunity or delegitimization of public schools? In SadovnikA., O’DayJ., BohmstedtG. S., & BohrmanK. M. (Eds.)No child left behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 343-358). New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
PaceJ. L. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of accountability on untested social studies across diverse school contexts. Theory and Research in Social Education, 39(1), 32-60.
36.
PaceJ. L. (2008) Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research and Practice, 3(1), 24-40.
37.
PalincsarA. S. & Brown A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2) 117-175.
38.
PalmerD. & RangelV. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25(4), 614-647.
39.
PearsonP. D. & DoleJ. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151-165.
40.
PorterP. H. (2007). Reflections. The United States: Making a new nation. New York, NY: Harcourt School Publishers.
41.
PressleyM.GoodchildF.FleetJ.ZajchowskiR., & EvansE. G. (1989) The Challenges of Classroom Strategy Instruction. The Elementary School Journal. 89(3), 301-342.
42.
PressleyM. & El-DinaryP. B. (1993). Introduction (Special issue on strategies instruction). The Elementary School journal, 94(2), 105-108.
43.
RockT.HeafnerT.OldendorfS.PasseJ.O’ConnorK.GoodA. & ByrdS. (2006). One state closer to a national crisis: A report on elementary social studies education in North Carolina schools. Theory and Research in Social Education. 34(4), 455-483.
44.
RussellW. B. (2009). Social studies, the lost curriculum: A research study of elementary teachers and the forces impacting the teaching of social studies. Curriculum and Teaching, 24(2), 75-86.
45.
SloanK. (2006). Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all- good/all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 119-152.
46.
SparksS. D. (2011). Experts say social sciences are ‘left behind.’ Retrieved from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/11/30/13social.h31.html
47.
StodolskyS. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
SupovitzJ. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press.
49.
ValenzuelaA.PrietoL.HamiltonM. P. (2007). Introduction to the special issue: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and minority youth: What the qualitative evidence suggests. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 1-8.
50.
ValliL. & ChamblissM. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons, and a highstakes test. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1), 42-60.
51.
VanFossenP. J. (2005). “Reading and math take so much time …”: An overview of social studies instruction in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33(3), 376-403.
52.
Von ZastrowC. & JaneH. (2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
53.
WatanabeM. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311-368.
54.
WillsJ. S. (2006). Authority, culture, context: Controlling the production of historical knowledge in elementary classrooms. In PaceJ. L. & HemmingsA. (Eds.), Classroom authority: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 33-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
WillsJ. S. (2007). Putting the squeeze on social studies: Managing teaching dilemmas in subject areas excluded from state testing. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1980-2046.
56.
YeagerE. A. & PinderM. (2006). “Does anybody really understand this test?” Florida high school social studies teachers’ efforts to make sense of the FCAT. In GrantS. G. (Ed.), Measuring History: Cases of High-Stakes Testing Across the States (pp. 249-272). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
