Social Education 70(5), pp.

317–321
©2006 National Council for the Social Studies

Research and Practice

The Social Studies “Research & Practice,” established early in

2001, features educational research that is
directly relevant to the work of classroom

Wars, Now and Then

teachers. Here, I invited Ron Evans to
provide an historical perspective on the
controversy that once again swirls around
the social studies curriculum.
Ronald W. Evans —Walter C. Parker, “Research and Practice”
Editor, University of Washington, Seattle.

In his foreword to Where Did Social
Studies Go Wrong?, published in 2003,
Chester Finn blames the “deterioration
of social studies in U.S. schools” on
the “lunatics” who have “taken over
the asylum,” and who are imparting
“ridiculously little knowledge” to
students. He lauds the volume’s intent
to explain “where and how and why
social studies went awry.”1 The book has
sparked a controversy over the current
state of the social studies curriculum.
But is controversy over social studies
new, and does it matter to those engaged
in the day-to-day work of teaching in
this subject area? My aims in this article
are, first, to capture the main camps
and patterns of the “social studies wars”
since the beginning of the twentieth
century and, second, to describe
critical episodes from that long history
that will help put the contemporary
controversies in historical perspective.
I’ll conclude by drawing three “lessons”
that social studies teachers today might
consider from this history of curriculum
disagreement in social studies.
Pendulum swings are a regular feature
of the curriculum landscape, and the
primary pattern has been this: toward
traditional and discipline-based
curricula during conservative times;
toward experimentation, child-centered
and inquiry or issues-oriented curricula
during liberal times. If you don’t like the
current direction of curricular reform,
take heart, it may not last.
Despite ever-changing curricular
fashions and trends, a set of competing
interest groups is a relatively constant
feature of the social studies arena.
There are five major competing camps,
as I described in a recent book, The
Social Studies Wars, struggling at
different times either to retain control
of social studies or to influence its
direction.2 The first, traditional
historians, supports history as the
core of social studies and emphasizes
content acquisition, chronology, and
the textbook as the backbone of the
course. This camp defined its approach
in the 1890s and has experienced a
revival in recent years. A second camp
advocates social studies as social science
and includes those who want a larger
place for teaching of the social science
disciplines in schools and those who
support a structure-of-the-disciplines
approach, which was at the heart of the
1960s new social studies movement. A
third group, social efficiency educators,
hopes to create a smoothly controlled
and more efficient society by applying
standardized techniques from business
and industry to schooling. Most often,
they have envisioned a scientifically
constructed, more directly functional
curriculum aimed at preparing students
for various life roles. A fourth group is
composed of social meliorists. These
are Deweyan experimentalists who
want to develop students’ reflective
thinking ability and, thereby, contribute
to social improvement. These theorists
advocate a reflective or issues-centered
curriculum and often emphasize
curricular attention to social problems.
A fifth and related group is composed
of social reconstructionists or critical
pedagogues, who cast social studies
in schools in a leading role in the
transformation of American society.
Other camps may be identified as well,
and other curriculum historians may
provide a different breakdown. Herbert
Kliebard, in a classic work, Struggle for
the American Curriculum, described
four main interest groups: humanists,
developmentalists, social efficiency
educators, and social meliorists.3 Hazel
Hertzberg, in Social Studies Reform,
discussed two main camps in social
studies: federationists, who favor
distinct disciplines, and unitarians,
who favor curriculum integration.4
Regardless of how the interest groups
are described, their rank and influence
on schooling changes slowly over time.
One is dominant, then recedes, as
another comes to prominence. None
disappears, but rather remains present
with a lower profile. It is as if they are
parallel streams; while one is flooded,
another may be parched, nearly dry.
Each of the streams has a history of
advocates and defenders, of innovators
and pretenders. Teachers can learn a
great deal about their own affinities,
and deepen their curricular identity, by
examining the various strands in some
depth.
Frequently, the social studies
curriculum and textbooks have served

September 2006
317
as a lightning rod, attracting comment
and criticism regarding the nature of
the field and the purposes of schooling,
and reflecting competing visions of the
worthy society, as if the curriculum was a
screen on which critics of various stripes
project their vision of a preferred future.
Moreover, the social studies wars reflect
the nation’s cultural divide, manifest in
the 2004 presidential election: red
states versus blue states; democrats
versus republicans; conservatives and
cultural fundamentalists versus liberals
and moderates. These are deep fractures,
a reflection of long-term trends, and are
not easily healed.
Critical Episodes
Since the inception of social studies in
the early twentieth century, a number of
critics have assailed the field for alleged
sins against history, one or more of the
social sciences, or mainstream values
and the American way of life. Here I’ll
feature six critical episodes beginning
with reactions to the 1916 Report on
Social Studies and concluding with the
1980s’ revival of history.
Reactions to the Report on Social
Studies
The first episode to be considered is
the early period of reactions to and
criticisms of the 1916 Report of the
Committee on Social Studies of the
National Education Association’s
Commission on the Reorganization
of Secondary Education. This report
called for a broad, interdisciplinary,
and modern approach to social studies.5
And it called for a 12th-grade capstone
course, Problems of Democracy
(POD), which focused on social issues
and fused government, economics, and
sociology. Reactions from professional
associations in the 1920s were mixed.
The report received partial support
from several disciplinary associations;
however, the majority disagreed with
curricular fusion and the creation of
the POD course. Critics called instead
for a strong grounding in the social
science disciplines through separate
courses in sociology, political science,
and economics. Only the National
Association of Secondary School
Principals gave a strong endorsement to
the report.6
Criticism abounded during the 1920s,
coming from advocates of traditional
history and the social sciences. Anna
Stewart accused the 1916 report of
“many inconsistencies,” and wrote
disparagingly of the trends it had set
in motion, like the move “to damn
history in order to boost civics.”7 Ross
L. Finney, a sociologist, criticized the
new POD course, arguing for a general
social science rooted in the disciplines
and weighing in against “the mere
forensic exchange of ignorant opinion”
that would occur in a course focused
on “problems.”8 Much of the criticism
centered on POD’s failure to advance
“scientific study.” But there was also
criticism of the idea of “social studies,”
mostly from advocates of traditional
history. Henry Johnson, for example,
lamented the idea of “history controlled
by present interests and problems.”9
Because of these differences among
the competing approaches, by the late
1920s the field’s status was described by
one observer as “Chaos in the Senior
High Social Studies.”10 Despite these
controversies, the broad and modern
approach to social studies, championed
by the Report on Social Studies, became
modal practice for much of the twentieth
century, and POD became a common
offering until its virtual disappearance
from schools in the 1970s, superceded
by a new wave of reform.
The Rugg Textbook Controversy
During the 1930s and early 1940s,
controversy and criticism centered on
social reconstructionism as embodied
in Harold Rugg’s avant-garde series
of social studies textbooks. Social
reconstructionists believed that social
change could be directed by schools
and wanted teachers and the curriculum
to play a strong role in the social
transformation of American society,
spearheading an effort to overcome
social injustice and the failures of
capitalism.
S o c i a l E d u c at i o n
318
The Rugg textbooks melded materials
from history and the social sciences
into an issues-oriented, unified-field
approach to social studies. Virtually
every topic was introduced through
a social issue or problem connected
to students’ lives, and the series drew
on recent scholarship from the “new”
progressive historians and other
“frontier thinkers.” The writing was
lively and engaging, and the series was
thoroughly illustrated and filled with
interesting charts and graphs. It became
the best-selling social studies series of
its time. For the ten-year period from
1929 to 1939, the series sold 1,317,960
copies at approximately $2 each, and
more than 2,687,000 workbooks.11
Despite his professed aim of balance,
Rugg’s materials contained significant
amounts of social criticism and raised
serious questions about the traditional
role of government in matters such as
regulation of business, providing for
social welfare, and treatment of the
unemployed. The texts also critiqued
advertising as wasteful and portrayed
the framers of the Constitution as men
of wealth interested in protecting their
own interests.
Consequently, critics viewed the Rugg
materials as “against private enterprise,”
as a “subtle, sugar-coated effort to
convert youth to Communism,” as part
of a “reconstructed” educational system
geared to teaching that “our economic
and political institutions are decadent.”
Later critics accused the Rugg books
and others of being “un-American.”12
Attacks on the Rugg textbook series
were at first centered in the New
York City metropolitan area, and
were orchestrated by an interlocking
directorate of critics, including Amos
Fries, E. H. West, and Augustin G.
Rudd of the American Legion; Bertie C.
Forbes, publisher of Forbes magazine;
Alfred T. Falk of the Advertising
Federation of America; and Merwin K.
Hart of the New York State Economic
Council, among others. The controversy
intensified in 1939-1940 with a series of
critical articles in nationally circulated
magazines including Nation’s Business
 and the American Legion Magazine.
The stakes were raised considerably
on December 11, 1940, when the
National Association of Manufacturers
announced its “survey” of textbooks
to see if it could find evidence of
subversive teaching. Then, on February
22, 1941, a headline at the top of the
front page of The New York Times read:
“Un-American Tone Seen in Textbooks
on Social Sciences: Survey of 600 Used
in Schools Finds a Distorted Emphasis
on Defects of Democracy, Only a Few
Called Red.” Rugg’s textbooks were
featured prominently in the story.13
Rugg and many of his colleagues at
Columbia University and elsewhere
organized a defense, and Rugg engaged
his critics directly, often in person.14
Despite the protests, corrections, and
replies that followed, the damage had
been done. The controversy generated
a national media feeding frenzy and
left the lingering impression that social
studies was some sort of radical plot.
The Controversy over American
History
A third controversy occurred in the
1940s. At its center were charges from a
respected historian, Allan Nevins, that
U.S. history was no longer sufficiently
taught in the nations schools. Nevins
wrote in The New York Times Magazine
that “requirements in American history
and government” are “deplorably
haphazard, chaotic, and ineffective,”
and he cited uneven laws requiring
American history in schools (22 states
had no law). He argued that this
“neglect” undermined the “patriotism
and unity of the country” needed in a
time of war.15 The article led to a New
York Times survey of college level
history teaching and a New York Times
test on American history that was then
given to 7,000 college freshmen at 36
institutions across the nation to collect
evidence on their lack of knowledge in
the subject. Nevins’s own experience
with his daughter’s schooling, “without
any American history whatever,”
apparently lay behind his concerns.
Once again, the bogey was social studies.
Hugh Russell Fraser, who joined what
came to be referred to as The New York
Times crusade against social studies,
blamed “extremists from NCSS and its
twin brother, Teachers College,” for the
decline in the teaching of history.16
These charges led to a spirited and
heroic defense of social studies from
Edgar B. Wesley, Wilbur Murra, Erling
M. Hunt, and others who provided
evidence that U.S. history was a
“universal requirement” in the nation’s
schools.
Despite the overwhelming evidence
supporting social studies—and dis-
proving the claims made by Nevins—
many of the charges stuck, again
undermining social studies in the public
mind. The controversy over American
history combined with the turmoil over
the Rugg textbooks to serve as a major
turning point, transforming a turf battle
among competing camps into a war on
social studies.
The Cold War Years
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a
growing crescendo of criticisms aimed at
“progressive education” emerged—with
many of the most negative observations
focused on social studies—packaged
and marketed under colorful titles such
as Educational Wastelands, Quackery
in the Public Schools, Progressive
Education is REDucation, and Who
Owns Your Child’s Mind?17 Arthur
Bestor, a historian and one of the most
respected critics, called social studies
an anti-intellectual “social stew.”18 The
authors critiqued the “scrambling” of
history, geography, and government into
the social studies; they bemoaned the
“anti-intellectualism” of educators who
they derisively called “educationists”;
and they frequently linked progressive
education to Communism.
Educators responded with articles
and books countering the charges—
though it was a relatively muted
response, reflecting the times. In 1955,
the Progressive Education Association
went out of business. And in 1957, the
journal Progressive Education ceased
publication. By the late 1950s, the
September 2006
319
National Council for the Social Studies
had largely caved in to the critics and
followed their recommendations for a
social studies curriculum built around
the disciplines. The 1950s critiques
were the culmination of a trend begun
much earlier, and amounted to the
villainization of social studies as a kind
of national sport.
Aftermath of the New Social Studies.
Another round of criticism occurred
in the aftermath of another period of
innovation, the era of the “new” and
“newer” social studies during the 1960s
and 1970s. The “new” social studies
focused primarily on inquiry and the
“structure” of the disciplines, with the
notable exception of the public issues
model developed by Donald Oliver and
associates. According to Jerome Bruner
and other theorists, each discipline
had a structure, including key concepts
and forms of inquiry, that could serve
as the basis for an inquiry approach to
teaching and learning. Students would
become “little league” historians and
social scientists, emulating the scholar’s
approach to knowledge. A prime
example was the work of Edwin Fenton
who developed an approach to teaching
history through historical “problems”
using primary source documents.19
The newer social studies, which fol-
lowed on the heels of the new social
studies, embodied a flurry of interest
in teaching social issues and the subse-
quent mini-course explosion. This was
a time during which traditional social
studies courses were frequently broken
into short courses with a topical, the-
matic, or issues focus (e.g., the Civil War,
the Presidency, Minorities in American
History, Revolutionary Movements, or
Human Sexuality).
These movements spawned a num-
ber of disagreements, among them aca-
demic freedom cases involving teachers
Keith Sterzing and Frances Ahern, in
which teaching innovations were liter-
ally put on trial. Book and textbook
controversies occurred in Kanawaha
County, West Virginia, and in the state of
Georgia, the latter involving the Fenton
textbook series. But the most famous
 controversy of the period centered on
Man: A Course of Study (MACOS), a
project of the new social studies era ini-
tially led by Bruner. MACOS drew on
anthropological sources, and focused
inquiry on the question “What is human
about human beings?” It was described
by Congressman John B. Conlan as a
“dangerous assault on cherished values
and attitudes,” because of its “approv-
ing” depiction of “killing the elderly and
female infants, wife-swapping and trial
marriage, communal living, witchcraft
and the occult, [and] cannibalism.”20 In
defense of social studies, NCSS issued
statements on academic freedom, and
organized the NCSS Legal Defense
Fund. The Wingspread Conference,
organized by NCSS in 1976 in response
to the MACOS controversy, focused on
understanding and overcoming the criti-
cisms, but had little impact. Aside from
MACOS, these academic freedom cases
appear largely forgotten.
The overall pattern seemed a replay-
boom and bust, innovation followed by
criticism and reaction. These incidents
again contributed to the impression that
social studies was influenced by radi-
cals with an un-American bent, and they
combined with the “failure” of the ‘new’
and ‘newer’ social studies to leave the
field seemingly directionless.
The Revival of History
Into the void left by the failure of the
new and newer social studies stepped
the revival of history in the 1980s.
Historian and former assistant secretary
of education Diane Ravitch made social
studies a scapegoat for the “decline and
fall of history teaching,” portraying it
as a vacuous form of “tot sociology.”21
Ravitch and other critics charged that
social studies was poorly defined and
directed by fashion. This was largely a
revival of the disparaging commentary
on social studies from the 1950s and
earlier. In essence, the revival of history
represented the citizenship education
wing of a much larger conservative resto-
ration in schools and society. The move-
ment gathered steam with formation of
the Bradley Commission and received
substantial funding from the conserva-
tive Bradley Foundation. Despite several
criticisms of the revival of history from
social studies scholars, the response
from NCSS leaders was to create a new
consensus definition for social studies
and to lend support to the standards
movement via creation of NCSS stan-
dards.22 The new definition developed
by NCSS offered social studies as an
umbrella for the teaching of history and
the social sciences, and further weak-
ened support for alternative approaches.
The net result was an increase in course-
taking in history and the social sciences,
notably in world history and geography,
and a decline in elective social studies
offerings.
Recent years have witnessed the
increasing pressure of money on the
social studies wars through the well-
heeled influence of conservative foun-
dations and interest groups. Wedded to
the corporate, business-driven agenda
for schools, they have emphasized tradi-
tional history, geography, and civics; pro-
moted curriculum standards and high-
stakes testing; and sought to vacate the
term “social studies” from curriculum
governance.23
Lessons for Teachers
What lessons might teachers take away
from this long, colorful, and controver-
sial past? As a curriculum historian, I use
the term “lessons” advisedly. There are
no hard and fast lessons. History is open
to interpretation. But here are a few of my
thoughts on what we who teach can gain
from a study of the social studies past.
One important lesson is that teach-
ers have choices. Among the options are
those offered by each of the camps in the
social studies wars: traditional histori-
ans, who support history as the core of
social studies; advocates of social studies
as social science education; social effi-
ciency educators, who hope to create
a smooth-running and efficient society;
social meliorists, who want to develop
reflective thinking and contribute to
social improvement; and social recon-
structionists, who want social studies
in schools to play a leading role in the
S o c i a l E d u c at i o n
320
transformation of American society. For
these choices to matter, teachers need
to examine the alternatives and develop
their rationales and teaching practices
thoroughly.
An important corollary to the first
lesson is that freedom is powerful, and
fleeting. Academic freedom is essential
for democracy to flourish, and for teach-
ers to enact thoughtful visions to guide
their work. Teachers need to defend
the integrity of the field and the rights
of teachers and curriculum workers to
make educated choices from among the
alternatives. The freedom of the child
to learn, and of the teacher to make well-
informed curricular decisions within
broad parameters, is the essence of pro-
fessional practice in education.
A third lesson is that, in the social stud-
ies wars, the traditional discipline-based
approaches seem to have staying power.24
This may be due to the fact that the dis-
ciplines have a large number of ready
advocates in colleges and universities
across the nation, along with their allies
in the teaching field. It is also a reflection
of the fact that social studies educators
and scholars often get little respect out-
side schools of education. Nonetheless,
it is important to note that a number of
scholars have elaborated well-grounded
and persuasive arguments for alterna-
tives to a strict disciplinary approach as
the defining framework for the field, and
that these have a strong, if small, follow-
ing. As we have seen, in the 1920s Rugg
developed a unified-field approach
to social studies, framing and melding
the study of history and the social sci-
ences in a manner that would illuminate
perennial issues. In Rugg’s words, “To
keep issues out of school curriculum is
to keep meaning out, to keep life out!”25
During the 1950s, Oliver criticized the
traditional discipline-based approaches
on the grounds that they often failed to
take into account the “ferment and con-
flict over competing ideas and values”
in American society. Later, with James
Shaver, he developed an approach to
social studies centered on the study
of “existing and predicted conflicts” in
our society.26 In addition, a number of

other scholars have addressed the costs
of strict adherence to the traditional dis-
ciplines as the basis for social studies in
schools.27
Far from being simply an academic
matter, controversy over the teaching of
social studies in schools represents a tan-
gible forum through which Americans
have struggled over competing visions of
the good society and the desirable future.
At its heart, this is a struggle over both
the nature of social studies and the kind
of society in which we want to live.
Notes
1. Chester Finn, “Foreword,” in Where Did Social
Studies Go Wrong?, eds. James Leming, Lucien
Ellington, and Kathleen Porter (Washington, D.C.:
Fordham Foundation, 2003), I.
2. Ronald W. Evans, The Social Studies Wars: What
Should We Teach the Children? (New York: Teachers
College, 2004).
3. Herbert M. Kliebard, Struggle for the American
Curriculum, 1893-1958 (London: Routledge and
Keegan Paul, 1986).
4. Hazel W. Hertzberg, Social Studies Reform, 1880-
1980 (Boulder, Colo.: Social Science Education
Consortium, 1981).
5. United States Bureau of Education, The Social
Studies in Secondary Education (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, Bulletin #28,
1916).
6. P.W.L. Cox, “Social Studies in the Secondary School
Curriculum,” Sixth Yearbook, National Association
of Secondary School Principals 6 (1922): 126-132.
7. Anna Stewart, “The Social Sciences in Secondary
Schools,” Historical Outlook 12 (1921): 53.
8. Ross L. Finney, “Tentative Report of the Committee
on the Teaching of Sociology in the Grade and High
Schools of America,” The School Review 28 (1920):
255-262.
9. Henry Johnson, “Report of Committee on History

4FQUFNCFS



and Education for Citizenship: Part II, History in
the Grades,” Historical Outlook, 12 (1921): 93-95.
10. Edwin J. Dahl, “Chaos in the Senior High Social
Studies,” The High School Teacher (1928): 185-
188.
11. Elmer A. Winters, “Harold Rugg and Social
Reconstructionism,” (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968).
12. Bertie C. Forbes, “Treacherous Teachings,” Forbes
(August 15, 1939): 8; Alonzo F. Myers, “The Attacks
on the Rugg Books,” Frontiers of Democracy 7 (1940):
17-21.
13. Benjamin Fine, “Un-American Tone Seen in
Textbooks on Social Sciences,” The New York Times
(February 22, 1941): 1, 6; Fine; The New York Times
(December 11, 1940): 29.

PUIFS

14. Harold O. Rugg, That Men May Understand: An

BOE
UP
WJFX
PVS
DBUBMPH

WJTJU


American in the Long Armistice (New York:
Doubleday, Doran, 1941); Rugg, “Confidential
Analysis of the Current (1939-1940) Attacks on the



FYU

Rugg Social Science Series, Prepared by Harold Rugg
in May-June 1940,” Harold Rugg folder, box 58,
William F. Russell Papers, Milbank Memorial Library,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
15. Allan Nevins, “American History for Americans,”
The New York Times Magazine (May 3, 1942): 6,
28.
16. Fine, “U.S. History Study is Not Required in 82% of Conservative Challenges to the Undergraduate
Colleges,” The New York Times (June 21, 1942): 1, Course of Study: Linking Capital, Culture, and the
36; Fine, “Ignorance of U.S. History Shown by Undergraduate Curriculum,” (Paper presented at the
College Freshmen,” The New York Times (April 4, annual meeting of the American Educational Research
1943): 1, 32-33; “Fraser Quits Post in History Association, San Diego, Calif., 2004); Vincent Stehle,
Dispute,” The New York Times (April 11, 1943): “Righting Philanthropy,” The Nation (June 30, 1997):
30. 15-20.
17. Arthur E. Bestor, Educational Wastelands: The 24. This is somewhat less true for the structure-of-the-
Retreat From Learning in Our Public Schools disciplines approach.
(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1953); Albert 25. Rugg, That Men May Understand: An American in
Lynd, Quackery in the Public Schools (Boston: Little, the Long Armistice, xi-xii.
Brown, 1953); Kitty Jones and Robert Olivier, 26. Donald W. Oliver, “The Selection of Content in the
Progressive Education is REDucation (Boston: Social Sciences,” Harvard Education Review 27
Meador, 1956); John T. Flynn, “Who Owns Your (1957): 271-300; Donald W. Oliver and James P.
Child’s Mind?” The Reader’s Digest (October, 1951): Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School
23-28. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966).
18. Bestor, Educational Wastelands. 27. Shirley H. Engle and Anna S. Ochoa, Education for
19. Edwin P. Fenton, The New Social Studies (New York: Democratic Citizenship: Decision Making in the
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967); Jerome Bruner, Social Studies (New York: Teachers College, 1988);
The Process of Education (Cambridge: Harvard Maurice P. Hunt and Lawrence E. Metcalf, Teaching
University Press, 1960); Donald W. Oliver, “The High School Social Studies: Problems in Reflective
Selection of Content in the Social Sciences,” Harvard Thinking and Social Understanding (New York:
Education Review 27 (1957): 271-300. Harper and Brothers, 1955 and 1968); Henry Giroux,
20. John B. Conlan, “MACOS: The Push for a Uniform Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics
National Curriculum,” Social Education 39, no.6 of Education (New York: Routledge, 1992).
(1975): 388-392.
21. Diane Ravitch, “Decline and Fall of History Teaching,”
The New York Times Magazine (November 17, 1985):
50-53, 101, 117.
22. National Council for the Social Studies, Expectations
of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Ronald W. Evans is professor in the School of
Studies (Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Teacher Education at San Diego State University
Social Studies, 1994).
in California.
23. Leming, et. al., Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?;
Steven Selden, “Fifty Years of Sponsored Neo-
5IF
#JMM
PG
3JHIUT
*OTUJUVUF

:PVS
3FTPVSDF
GPS
"MM
:PVS
$POTUJUVUJPO
%BZ
/FFET
5IF
#JMM
PG
3JHIUT
*OTUJUVUF
PõFST
'3&&
FEVDBUJPOBM

NBUFSJBMT
UP
IFMQ
ZPVS
TUVEFOUT
UP
DPNNFNPSBUF

$POTUJUVUJPO
%BZ
7JTJU
XXX#JMMGPG3JHIUT*OTUJUVUFPSH/$44
BOE

HFU
MJOLFE
UP
NBUFSJBMT
BWBJMBCMF
BU
OP
DPTU
UP
ZPV


)JHIMJHIUT
JODMVEF
t .JEEMF
BOE
IJHI
TDIPPM
$POTUJUVUJPO


MFTTPO
QMBOT
t -FTTPO
PO
GSFFEPN
PG
UIF
QSFTT
WT


OBUJPOBM
TFDVSJUZ
t "
$POTUJUVUJPO
$VCF
t "OE
NPSF
'PS
'3&&
$POTUJUVUJPO
%BZ
MFTTPO
QMBOT
SFTPVSDFT
NEW FIRST
XXX#JMMPG3JHIUT*OTUJUVUFPSH


AMENDMENT
LESSON
PS
DBMM

AVAILABLE!
The Bill of Rights Institute is a non-profit organization
and our mission is to provide materials that teach
students about the Founding of our nation and what it
means to be an American citizen.
September 2006
321
 ON THE ALLEGED DEMISE OF SOCIAL STUDIES: THE ECLECTIC CURRICULUM IN
TIMES OF STANDARDIZATION—A HISTORICAL SKETCH

DAVID WARREN SAXE

Social studies is a survivor, enduring as a mainstay of the American curriculum for nearly 100 years. Its
longevity is not a tribute to its curricular power nor can we credit a cadre of finely trained professionals
for maintaining its influence. Rather, social studies’ remarkable survival is due to the near-universal
acceptance of the idea that this chameleon-like entity allows practitioners to cast and recast its form and
substance into whatever shape desired. This flexible-all-inclusive-eclectic nature of social studies stems
from its first “official definition” issued in 1916.
The social studies are understood to be those whose subject matter relate to the organization and development
of human society, and to man as a member of social groups.1

At the turn of the century, in looking toward the future, all that America had become (i.e.,
its inventive genius, its unlimited resources harnessed, its great commercial and industrial power,
its magnificent cities and its teeming humanity) rested on the ability of “man as a member of
social groups” to negotiate the issues, problems, and concerns that such modernity created. In the
face of these realities, the curricular needs of American society could only be met by attending to
“man’s” contemporary social aspects, not his past. Here, the engine of American education
would be enlisted to serve the people. As children were freed from their bolted down nineteenth
century seats, social studies, a new flexible and unregimented twentieth century curricular
program, was invented to meet the demands of this progressive new society.
In practice, social studies “content” would be drawn from the whole of human experience and
was purposely not tied to any specific content area. And, what was the purpose of studying this content?
According to the seminal 1916 Committee on Social Studies, which introduced the field to American
educators:
The social studies differ from other studies by reason of their social content rather than in social aim; for
the keynote of modern education is ‘social efficiency,’ and instruction in all subjects should contribute to
this end….[F]rom the nature of their content, the social studies afford peculiar opportunities for the
training of the individual as a member of society….[S]ociety may be interpreted to include the human race
… The social studies should cultivate a sense of membership in the ‘world community,’ with all the
sympathies and sense of justice that this involves as among the different divisions of human society.2

Throughout the twentieth century, educators applied this loose concept of social studies as the
basis for creating experimental curricula. Often in strong opposition, another cast of “social studies”
figures drew inspiration and content from the older traditional history curriculum introduced at the end of
the nineteenth century. Like any other educational innovation, social studies was not created in a vacuum.
Its invention was as much a reaction to prevailing curricula as it was an innovation. For citizenship
education purposes, what existed in most high schools prior to social studies was a history-centered
program introduced by the Committee of Seven, in 1899, calling for formal studies in ancient, medieval,
modern and American histories as gateways toward effective citizenship.3
Issued under the authority of the American Historical Association, the four-block program for
high schools was designed to furnish students “as citizens of a free state” with the “mental equipment” to
comprehend the “political and social problems that will confront him in everyday life.”4 “The greatest aim
of education,” the Committee of Seven claimed, “was to impress upon the learner a sense of duty and
responsibility, and an acquaintance with his human obligations.”5 The Committee was adamant that the
curriculum include:
four years of work, beginning with ancient history and ending with American histor…and recommend that
they be studied in the order in which they are set down, which in large measure accords with the natural
order of events, and shows the sequence of historical facts…. No one of these fields can be omitted without
leaving serious lacunae in the pupil’s knowledge of history.6

Although the Committee of Seven report did not contain the amount of specific content as found
in modern state history standards from such states as California, Massachusetts, or Virginia, or even the
recently condemned National Standards for History, publishers nonetheless supplied textbooks well-
stocked with dates, events, personalities and issues all chronologically arranged and largely standardized
throughout the industry. In 1935, when the textbook was the curriculum, Rolla Tryon wrote that “the fact
of the matter is that a textbook intended for high school use in history published between 1900-1915 had
hard ‘sledding’ if it failed to claim that it conformed to the report of the Committee of Seven.”7 Tryon
also noted that “for at least two decades after [the Committee of Seven report appeared], high school
courses in history in the United States were almost 100 percent dictated by it. Even today [1935] more
than a generation after the publication of the report, its influence is dominating in probably one-third of
the high schools of the country.”8
Despite the virtual lock on schools, the history-centered curriculum was attacked by social studies
insurgents for more than a decade before the 1916 Committee on Social Studies completed its work. In
reaction to a growing number of critiques that held the history curriculum as unsuited to the pressures and
realities of modern life, historian John Bach McMaster responded confidently in 1905, that in the
“process of Americanizing the foreigner [and all other children] we must fill their minds with the facts of
American history which they may not understand, but which they must take as so much medicine.”9
In contrast, social worker Jane Addams, well acquainted with settling recent immigrants in
Chicago, argued in 1907 that “the usual effort to found a new patriotism upon American history is often
an absurd undertaking.”10 Between these two positions, the hard-edge of Americanization applied to
children and the softer progressive position that worked from the needs and interests of children, the
social studies movement emerged.
Although social studies theorists had argued persuasively enough to gain the support of the U.S.
Bureau of Education as well as the sponsoring National Education Association in advancing social
studies, the history curriculum did not disappear. In fact, as Tryon noted, the Committee of Seven’s
history program survived intact in many schools through World War II. Moreover, this author can attest
that traces of the four-block scheme continued into the 1960s as his high school offered the Committee of
Seven’s four-block program. Despite history’s resiliency, the critics’ point that history’s contribution to
the modern curriculum could only be useful if it cast light on contemporary problems proved potent, if not
commanding. Although the stewards of history sought to maintain the traditional history curriculum to
“train the intellect,” social studies practitioners relentlessly pressed their demands that every content area
must pass the test of social utility as a subject area that contributed to understanding and resolving
contemporary social problems.
Given the flexibility of school systems to determine their own methods and programs for
citizenship education, in time, some came to see social studies as history, geography, civics and
government, economics, and other content areas loosely constructed around the teaching of citizenship.
Others saw social studies as a unique field in its own right where young citizens learned the process-skills
and methodologies necessary for citizenship. Until the 1990s, when the standards movement took hold in
most states, it did not matter if a local school district followed a history-center approach to citizenship
education or if it adopted any one of dozens of social studies approaches to citizenship.
Thus, before the state standards movement, these two or three traditions of the field—to be
content-centered or process-centered or some combination of both—fit neatly under the big tent of social
studies. Programs and curricula may have differed from school to school, but all were identified by the
same name: social studies. With the push for greater specificity and accountability in the standards-base
movement instituted at the end of the twentieth century, those who wished to maintain social studies as a
term of eclectic convenience were confronted with public polices and state regulations that demanded a
specific curriculum with defined content and skills to be taught, learned, and assessed for all schools
within state authority. One hundred years ago, educators and policymakers had instituted a prescriptive
program in history education. Taking up the educational philosophy of John Dewey, some eighty years
ago, social studies advocates instituted a loosely constructed citizenship program that marginalized
history. In turn, by the late twentieth century many states adopted a standards-base model that reinstituted
prescriptive curricula. We had traveled full circle.
While some state standards reflected a renewed interest in history-centered (and other discrete
subject matters) and dropped social studies by title, many others simply converted their curricula into
content-centered standards with social studies remaining as the masthead. Still others retained the eclectic
social studies.
The question of whether or not history-centered models will return in force or the eclectic social
studies will recover ground lost in the standards-based movement remains to be answered. However, one
thing is clear throughout the past century: It does not matter if history-centered models were couched as
social studies or if social studies programs presently appear subdued by history-centered initiatives,
neither history nor social studies has fully disappeared in schools. The question posed here is not the fact
that social studies survives in such places as public schools, textbooks, or teacher certification programs,
but whether social studies should survive?
This is not the place to recount the myriad battles between social studies and history nor to
feature the many curricular models that were issued as social studies curricula (readers may consult other
accounts for such treatments).11 Suffice to say, that as the eclectic wing of social studies continued to drift
from one curricular fad to another, the field’s history-centered, disciplinary-focused wing remained
entrenched in certain quarters, poised to return.
Inevitably, as the standards and accountability movement gained traction in the closing decades
of the twentieth century, the eclectic social studies theorists scrambled to maintain their field’s relevance
in the schools at the policy level. As parents and policymakers demanded a clearly defined curriculum
complete with mechanisms to measure the results of teaching, the loose construct of social studies became
a problem. Suddenly, the very characteristics that had sustained social studies over the years—its
flexibility, its adaptability, its contemporary orientation, its absence of a coherent core of knowledge—
became liabilities.
Social studies had invested its capital in a series of fads: life adjustment, expanding environments,
inquiry teaching, values clarification, issues-centered education, reflection, critical thinking, and dozens
of others. Some of these programs featured a transmission of culture and history; others the critical study
of the social sciences; still others sought to replicate social science scholarship. Some of the programs
featured personal development through life experiences; others were meant to use these models to study
social problems or help students to be more reflective; still others sought to induce social activism out of
students.
None, however, managed to command the field and few survived beyond the life-span of its
creators. Typically, led by university gurus and small armies of devoted followers, these eclectic
innovations, seductive in theory, proved unworkable in sustained practice. At the end of his career, Larry
Metcalf, the dean of 1950’s “reflection” models, lamented that “social studies [innovations] never failed,
they were never tried.”12 The reality of the situation was that given the license to invent social studies in
your own image, each generation of social studies practitioners simply reinvented the wheel. The only
tradition of social studies was to start anew.
Yet, the name social studies hung on through all those decades because of its infinite adaptability,
its capacity to adjust to the curricular needs and interests of students as well as the changing ideas of
educators.13 Social studies could be transformed into whatever a school might want. With one curricular
foot in a scattering of subject matters and the other in a multitude of processes, social studies were
everything and nothing. By the 1990s, however, its fluid, ephemeral nature reached a saturation point. At
this time, any experimental, free-form field was challenged by the introduction and spread of “standards.”
This demand provided an opening for surviving content-based programs to emerge. The ideal of
standards-based curricula required core content that spelled out what should be taught and learned—what
every child should know and be able to do. This turn of public policy was better suited for content-
centered programs with specific and detailed standards.
The time had come to retool school curricula and many policymakers turned to the older,
traditional history concept for a roadmap. Many states renamed their programs, reflecting the content-
centered nature of their state standards. For example, Pennsylvania dropped the term social studies
altogether for state certification, favoring instead the more descriptive “citizenship education” as the
masthead of its content-centered standards in history, geography, civics and government and economics.
Other states transitioned to content-based standards, but still retained the term social studies. Nonetheless,
several states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington maintained the older, loose definition of
social studies in their state standards.
If the state standards movement has impacted the way social studies is taught and is thought of in
the various states, it would be instructive to review how this field, seemingly imperious to change, has
changed in the past two decades.
The most potent attack on the eclectic nature of social studies was launched in the 1983
publication of A Nation at Risk. Here, policymakers challenged educators to reinstate subject-based
instruction. By specifically calling for “improved teaching and learning” in history, geography and
economics, the authors of A Nation at Risk, members of the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, leveled their criticisms upon the supposed cause of the “rising tide of mediocrity that
threatened our very future as a Nation and a people:” ineffective, “diluted and diffused,” “smorgasbord”
curricula “that no longer ha[d] a central purpose.”14 That critique fit social studies to a T.
Only seven years earlier, social studies theorists themselves noted the mounting problems of
maintaining a curricular form that had expanded beyond the ability of practitioners to recognize and
articulate the mainlines of this ethereal social stew. Anticipating A Nation at Risk’s critique, Robert Barr,
James Barth, and Samuel Shermis observed:
The field of social studies is…caught up in ambiguity, inconsistency, and contradiction…. The confusion
in the field is apparent…. The content of the social studies is a smorgasbord…. For twelve years many
future social studies teachers are teased and tormented with an incoherent set of experience…with results
that they enter their profession uneasy and confused. We seem to be in deep trouble.15

In recognizing what many theorists in social studies already knew as flaws in the field, authors of
A Nation at Risk sought to reintroduce “rigorous” curricula, directly connected to “excellence” and
accountability. The report ushered in the notion of “common experience” and “high educational
standards.” The critical moment for social studies came six years later in Charlottesville at the 1989
education summit. Here, President George H. W. Bush and the nation’s governors, led by Arkansas
Governor Bill Clinton, prescribed proficiency in the traditional content areas of history and geography (as
well as English, math and science) as essential national education goals. They never even mentioned
social studies. While the direct impact of A Nation at Risk on social studies may have been initially
superficial, the Charlottesville identification of history and not social studies was surely a watershed
moment.
Charlottesville led to the “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” of 1994. This ambitious legislation
included the hopeful assertion that “All children will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign language,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.”16 Again, social studies did not make the
cut.
Knowing that standards in history, geography, civics and government, and economics would be
written without their direct involvement, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) leaders
shrewdly opted to create and finance its own standards, Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, in 1994.
Adopting an “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach, the NCSS standards were designed to
complement the four traditional disciplines within social studies. The NCSS standards were pitched to
schools as a mechanism to unite the four major subject areas (history, geography, civics and government
and economics) with other social studies areas (e.g., sociology, anthropology, archeology, psychology).
The once eclectic social studies, now forced to be more standard-like, also sought to highlight
multicultural themes and concepts.
As much as the NCSS tried to hold its audience, its advocates could not stop from shooting
themselves in the foot. As the educational world moved closer to standardization and testing
accountability, the NCSS moved further in the opposite direction with its kitchen-sink like definition of
social studies that was diametrically opposed to the sort of content focus many states had opted for their
state history, geography, civics and government, and economic standards. As featured in the NCSS
standards:
Social studies is the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic
competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study
drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archeology, economics, geography, history, law,
philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content
from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to
help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good
as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world 17

Obviously, such an all-and-nothing definition mounted a daunting, if not impossible, obstacle for
standards writers attempting to nail down a curriculum. Despite this unwieldy definition, the NCSS
standards might have gained scant traction, but for the unexpected debacle of the proposed National
Standards for History, released in October 1994. Touted as “the first milestone in the development of
standards of excellence for the nation’s schools,” this document came under a withering barrage of
criticism led by former Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynne V. Cheney, who had
helped its creation.
Although the authors of the National Standards of History—based at UCLA’s National Center of
History in Schools—insisted that their work represented a “national consensus” on American history, the
standards turned out mainly to be a “consensus” among multicultural and leftist interpretations of
American history. By January 1995, the criticism had grown so intense that Congressional leaders began
to backpedal on the whole idea of national standards in any field (the English and math standards had also
proven deeply controversial). The nails went into the national standards coffin when the U.S. Senate
condemned the National Standards for History on January 18, 1995. Consequently, the Clinton
administration’s Goals 2000 program shifted its focus from national to state standards.
When the National Standards for History took its well-deserved lumps, the poorly constructed
ten-strand NCSS social studies standards passed under the educational radar completely unnoticed.
Suddenly, just as the national standards-based movement appeared to bury eclectic, unanchored social
studies models, the come-back kid of the school curriculum was given a new lease on life.
Namely, the demise of the National Standards for History left a void in school curricula that the
NCSS standards quickly filled—proof that the social studies remained a viable element of school life.
Capitalizing on this opening, as the state standards movement spread, the NCSS pressed to maintain its
presence within the standards movement as well as its influence over the one area of the educational
system left untouched by state policy regulations, control of state teacher certification programs in
colleges and universities. Still, the NCSS standards had problems of their own. The field’s practice of
basing content on contemporary concerns worried policy makers seeking to return to basic knowledge and
skills with a more descriptive curriculum.
While flying the flag of eclectic social studies, many social studies leaders remained less
concerned with teaching history and civics than with using their version of the past to promote ideological
agendas. The influx of multicultural themes, those that highlighted particular cultures, ethnicities, sexual
orientations, class and other human characteristics rooted in modern political contexts, swamped any
pretext of political neutrality and objectivity. If the patent patronizing to minorities groups (to curry
political capital) was not bad enough, teachers were inundated with over-stuffed “cultural” and “social
justice” curricula spread a mile long and an inch deep.
 Earlier critics of social studies had worried that social studies ignored chronology and historical
context, not that it was ideologically tilted. After all, one quality of social studies was that its adaptable
and inclusive nature was non-judgmental. All sides of issues were open to scrutiny and debate and
ideologically charged “answers” were recognized and condemned as propaganda.18 Though proselytizing
for social justice is often couched in terms of promoting diversity, in fact, such efforts cause social studies
to violate its own eclectic nature by rejecting the tenet of neutrality and openness that was once part of its
credo.
As social studies forswears its traditional eclecticism, the cycle of reform has come full circle.
With the implementation of statewide standards, social studies advocates in many states could no longer
count on flexibility or rely on opportunistic lessons drawn from the supposed needs and fleeting interests
of students and teachers.19 This position favors the return of history-centered (content centered) models.
Still, to many policymakers, although the ideal of state standards demands that all children receive
rigorous, essential knowledge and skills in various school subjects, including history, geography,
civics and government, and economics, the truth is that not all states have taken up this
reasonable cause. While a number of states continue to cling to social studies in name, the state
standards movement has put a significant dent in the eclectic social studies. However, with many
states promoting the NCSS’s multicultural and morally relativistic curricula, we certainly have
yet to see a strong movement within the educational establishment back to rigorous history
standards.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, on one end of the policy-making spectrum, we find
ourselves returning to the prescriptive curricular model that once prevailed at the end of the nineteenth
century. On the other end of this spectrum, we find proponents of the NCSS standards, fiercely defending
their turf. The issue for us is, will the movement to replace social studies with history and civics gain
momentum and force curricular change?
In 1899, the teaching of American history served as the gateway to citizenship education.
To illustrate just one bit of the big picture, in 2001, Congress authorized the Teaching of
(traditional) American History grant program under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. Its purposes are
(1) to carry out activities to promote the teaching of traditional American history in elementary schools and
secondary schools as a separate academic subject (not as a component of social studies).

(2) for the development, implementation, and strengthening of programs to teach traditional American history
as a separate academic subject (not as a component of social studies) within elementary school and secondary
school curricula, including the implementation of activities.20

Social studies advocates can hardly miss the handwriting on this Congressional wall: The focus of
this grant features American history “not as a component of social studies.” Although the success of
American history as the centerpiece of citizenship education within the context of a state standards model
remains to be proven, the fact that social studies lobbyists have consistently failed to persuade policy-
makers to retain their program suggests that there might be some serious chinks in the social studies grip
on public schooling.
Still, would that the dead be buried with their bones. As the eclectic social studies may appear to
be in a serious tailspin among select policymakers (and much of the public hardly knows it even exists),
its influence hangs on. Social studies standards persist in nearly a third of state education standards. In
addition, teacher certification programs that guard the gateway to public school teaching are manned by
social studies stalwarts. State departments of education also defer to colleges and universities whose
social studies professors continue to train the square pegs of social studies to fit in the round holes of
history-centered state standards. Finally, “nervous nellies” in the textbook industry continue to publish
social studies curricular materials unanchored to state history standards, hopeful that the disconnect
between policy makers, higher education, and public schools will not leave them with warehouses of
useless products. While we should not write the eulogy for social studies, considering that the twentieth
century began with a history focus for citizenship education, in time it might be more accurate to say that
history-centered citizenship education is the real survivor…for what goes around is finally coming around
again.

NOTES
1. From the 1916 Committee on Social Studies Report, as reprinted in David Warren Saxe, 1991, Social
Studies in Schools: A History of the Early Years (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 204.
2. Ibid., 204-05.
3. American Historical Association, Report of the Committee of Seven (New York: Macmillan, 1899).
4. Ibid., 16.
5. Ibid., 35.
6. Ibid., 34-35.
7. Rolla M. Tryon, Social Sciences as School Subjects (New York: Charles Scribners, 1935), 27
8. Ibid., 24.
9. John Bach McMaster, in American Historical Association, “Conference on Public School History
Teachers,” (Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office, 1905), 3-4.
10. Jane Addams, “Influence of Foreign Population on Teaching History and Civics,” In Proceedings of
North Central History Teachers Association (Chicago: NCHTA, 1907), 3-4.
11. I have covered the origins of social studies in a number of other publications. Scholars might review the
following as necessary: David W. Saxe, “American Social Studies and Traditional History,” in Hans Albin Larsson,
ed.,1998, Historiedidaktiska Utmaningar (Jönköping, Sweden: Jönköping University Press, 1998); David W. Saxe,
Social Studies in Schools; David W. Saxe, “Social Studies Foundations: A Brief View of the Social Education
Debate, c.1910s,” in James L. Barth, ed., Foundations of Social Studies Bulletin 1 (January 1989): 20-30; David W.
Saxe, “Salient Dates of Social Studies: 1857-1940,” International Journal of Social Education 6, no. 2 (Autumn
1991): 11-18; David W. Saxe, “An Introduction to the Seminal Social Welfare and Efficiency Prototype: The
Founders of 1916 Social Studies,” Theory and Research in Social Education 20, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 156-178;
David W. Saxe, “Framing a Theory for Social Studies Foundations,” Review of Educational Research 62, no. 3 (Fall
1992): 259-77; and David W. Saxe, “Establishing a Voice for History in Schools: The First History Methods
Textbooks, 1896-1902,” Theory and Research in Social Education 22, no. 4 (Fall 1994): 482-514.
12. As quoted in David Warren Saxe, “Whatever Happened to the Socials Studies?” International Journal
of Social Education 4, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 54.
13. I refer readers to the following who might seek more detail on social studies in the 20th century to
David Jenness, Making Sense of Social Studies (New York: Macmillan, 1990) and to explore social studies in the
context of 20th century educational reform, Diane Ravitch, Left Back (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
14. Terrance Bell, A Nation at Risk (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1983).
15. Robert Barr, James Barth, and Samuel Shermis, Defining Social Studies, (Arlington, Va.: National
Council for the Social Studies, 1977), 1-4.
16. Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing
Office, 1994), 70.
17. National Council for the Social Studies, Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (Washington, D.C.:
National Council for the Social Studies, 1994), vii.
18. See Shirley Engle and Anna Ochoa, Education for Democratic Citizenship (New York: Teachers
College Press, 1988).
19. See David Warren Saxe, The State of State History Standards in 37 States and the District of Columbia
(Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998); and also, David Warren Saxe, “State of State History
Standards,” in Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, eds., State of State Standards (Washington, D.C.: Thomas
B. Fordham, 2002).
20. Teaching of American History Grant Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2001), United States
Department of Education, (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2001).

Table One:
 A Thumbnail Sketch of the Rise of Social Studies
1900-1916 Theorists present the rationale for social studies,
critics attack prevailing curricula
1913-1916 Outline of the Social Studies: National Education
Association’s Committee on the Social Studies
1921 Organization established to promote social studies
1922-1930s Publishers introduce textbooks and materials in
support of social studies
1922-1930s Indicating the acceptance of social studies in state
policy, state agencies and local school districts
institute social studies programs as the
official/authorized curriculum
1926-1932 Opposition to social studies is marginalized as one-
time opponents come into tent
Table Two
Thomas Jesse Jones and Arthur
Dunn introduce the idea that
modern problems should be the
focus of citizenship education;
Led by David Snedden, critics
argue for replacement of history-
centered curricula.
With U.S. government backing,
social studies is introduced to
American schools.
National Council for the Social
Studies founded by Harold and
Earl Rugg, Edgar Dawson.
Harold Rugg publishes his
“scientifically-based” social
studies series.
Two states lead the way: New
Jersey (1917) by recommending a
course of study and Pennsylvania
(1921) by instituting a state level
office in social studies.
Social studies is legitimized by
the American Historical Society,
which accepts it as a school
subject; AHA co-sponsors the
Commission on Social Studies,
which advances social studies as
the main curricular vehicle for
citizenship education.
 A Thumbnail Sketch of the Alleged Demise of Social Studies
1980s Curricula in the eclectic nature of social studies
are judged as ineffective.
1989 Policymakers join to demand more effective
programs for public education, calling for solid
content in history and geography. The National
Council for the Social Studies is ignored.
1994 Government pays for development of national
academic standards. The NCSS develops its
own independent “content” standards.
1995 Some states with strong history-centered
standards feature a return to disciplinary
focused school curricula tied directly to state
assessment
1994-2003 Policymakers re-center citizenship curricula on
history, geography, civics and government, and
economics.
A Nation at Risk report (1983) calls
on policymakers to return to essential
content with accountability.
Education Summit in Charlottesville;
approves the framework for Goals
2000.
Goals 2000 Act is signed into law by
Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.
Publication of the Virginia state
history standards
Congress authorizes $250 million for
teaching traditional American history
(“not social studies”), first grants
awarded in 2001; President George
W. Bush introduces “We the People”
initiatives to invigorate citizenship
education.
 Review of Educational Research
Fall 1992, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 259-277

Framing a Theory
for Social Studies Foundations
David Warren Saxe
Pennsylvania State University

In a field plagued by a lack of identity, I argue that practitioners and theorists are
prevented from articulating viable perceptions of social studies' purpose, theory, and
practice because they lack basic understandings of the original historical underpinnings
ofsocial studies. As found in recent literature, three origin myths of social studies have
emerged that hinder needed curricular research as well as mitigate against further
development of social studies as afield of study. This review identifies and provides
examples of these myths. In addition, while discounting each myth, I present a review
of the field's origins, as first developed in the 19th century social welfare movement and
later refined by like-minded members of the National Education Association's 1916
Committee on Social Studies (Dunn, 1916).

On the eve of World War II, James A. Michener (1939, 1991) edited one of the
most important bulletins in the history of the National Council for the Social Studies
(NCSS). In this seminal work, entitled The Future of Social Studies, Michener
collected some of the best thoughts on the accomplishments of social studies to date,
together with timely suggestions for the future of the field. With the coming war,
however, this bulletin was not able to realize the promise found in its title. Instead, for
both Michener and social studies, The Future of Social Studies marked a symbolic
transition point. Following the war, Michener did not return to his promising prewar
career as a social studies professor (he went on to become a master of popular
literature). Social studies, as a field, never recovered the spirit and excitement of its
prewar days.
Between the 1921 founding of the National Council for the Social Studies and
Michener's 1939 NCSS bulletin, social studies had become a viable and vital curricu-
lar area of public schooling. Beginning with the experimental fusion work of Harold
Rugg (1921,1929) and Earle Rugg (1923) and extending to Paul Hanna's expanding
environments (1934,1936) and to the innovative work of Edgar Bruce Wesley (1937),
the field of social studies was an exciting curricular and pedagogical enterprize. After
the publication of Michener's bulletin, however, conditions brought about by World
War II, the Cold War, and other societal concerns ended the experiments and
reforms of social studies. New issues had turned educators in search of curricular
stability away from the tentative nature of social studies. Eventually, the field of
social studies became disconnected from its past as well as the promise described in
The Future of Social Studies. In time, social studies became less of a dynamic element
of schooling and more of a saber-toothed curriculum—here in spirit, gone in body.
Where teachers, administrators, and even social studies theorists continued the
litany and rituals of the field, there was little understanding of its original purpose and
even less understanding of a continuing dialogue for examining collective aims.
Simply put, social studies became entrenched in schools as a tradition of habit. With
259

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
its original experimental nature detached from practice, it is little wonder that
educational leaders since the 1940s have either given up on social studies or—perhaps
more simply, in not understanding the purpose for social studies—decided to try
something else. A case in point is the much publicized America 2000 (U.S. Dept. of
Education, 1991), which has dropped social studies as a core curricular area in favor
of an undefined application of history and geography, as if social studies has nothing
to do with history and geography.
This omission of social studies should not come as a surprise to anyone, even to
social studies educators. Social studies practitioners have had very little investment in
their past. Indeed, in a field where historical perspective is held to be critical, it is
ironic that practitioners of social studies possess such a pronounced historical deficit
regarding the purpose, theory, and practice of social studies. What has not been
transmitted to its practitioners is that social studies once was viewed as the premier
model for citizenship education; social studies emerged to cultivate reflective citizens
amid a context of problems associated with rapid urbanization, massive immigration,
social unrest, and other political, economic, and cultural issues.
Today, with concerns over demands for a curriculum of ethnic and cultural inclu-
sion, new patterns of immigration and other demographic shifts, as well as persistent
economic uncertainties, the need for social studies has not diminished. Conse-
quently, unable to draw on the past of social studies as an elastic curricular area
capable of embracing and addressing any number of societal conditions, challenges,
and needs, social studies practitioners' deficit of historical orientation may have not
only crippled the field but also seriously hindered curricular development.
I present this review not so much to explore why social studies lost its past or to
examine how the past of social studies has been separated from its practitioners but to
highlight the fact that the profession of social studies is without a past. As with any
discipline, social studies practitioners and theorists need to recollect and make sense
of the field's past. The key to understanding social studies can be found in its
origins—that is, in knowing why and how the field was developed for the purpose of
furthering civic competence. To some, the origins are obvious; to others, they are
unknown. Some believe that knowledge of curricular foundations is critical to present
application; others neither use nor make such claims.
Although the term social studies, as a curricular idea, gained currency in the 1920s,
the meanings associated with social studies, as highlighted by Barth and Shermis
(1970; also see Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977), have been disputed ever since. Rather
than focusing on the various meanings attached to social studies that have emerged
since the 1920s, this review acknowledges the meaning that evolved from the social
welfare movement of the 1800s into a curricular program in the 1910s that featured
social studies as: (a) a meaningful integration of history, geography, civics, and the
various social sciences used to promote the learning/practice of civic competence;
(b) a program that emphasized direct/active student participation; and (c) a repre-
sentation of two interdisciplinary experimentally based courses, "Community
Civics" and "Problems of American Democracy" (Dunn, 1916).
The purpose of this review is not to prove any axiomatic property for social studies
foundations (or for the foundations of any curricular area) but to add form, sub-
stance, and critical interpretation to a historical record that has been sadly neglected.
The utility of this enterprise is to build on existing records so that theorists and
practitioners alike can clarify their own understanding of things past in order to
260

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations

develop more viable conceptualizations, applications, and assessments of social

studies. Given this context, this review of social studies literature will focus on two
questions: What are the origins of social studies, and how are the origins treated in
social studies literature?
Origins Found in Social Studies Methods Textbooks
For most social studies practitioners, social studies methods textbooks are likely to
be the sole source of historical orientation on the origins of social studies theory and
practice. Unless instructors are supplementing this orientation—which of course may
be the case—teachers in training are left with textbooks that do not treat origins of
social studies or offer incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information. As found in
the textbook citations, because social studies methods textbook authors typically rely
on secondary sources for historical information, if data about the origins of social
studies is included in textbooks, it appears to be accomplished without challenge.
In surveying 25 current elementary and secondary methods texts on how the past of
social studies was treated, three central, origin theories emerged. Eighteen of these
texts appeared to operate with what might be called a continuous spontaneous
existence (CSE) theory—in other words, social studies exists without antecedents, or
the past of social studies is not relevant. In brief, although these texts focus on the
teaching of social studies, the 18 texts did not offer any explanation as to why or how
social studies came to be part of school curricula (see Armstrong, 1980; Banks, 1990;
Chapin & Messick, 1989; Dobkin, Fisher, Ludwig, & Koblinger, 1985; Ellis, 1991;
Evans & Brueckner, 1990; Fraenkel, 1985; Hennings, Hennings, & Banich, 1989;
Jarolimek, 1990; Kaltsounis, 1987; Michaelis, 1988; Michaelis & Rushdoony, 1987;
Naylor & Diem, 1987; Savage & Armstrong, 1992; Schuncke, 1988; Van Cleaf, 1991;
Welton & Mallan, 1987; Zevin, 1992). For whatever reasons, the authors decided to
ignore the notion of origins or historical orientation altogether. To the presentist
authors—using an inventive ahistorical mentality—each preservice social studies
teacher is charged to activate social studies in his or her own image without historical
antecedents to bother with or ponder.
Two of the 25 texts represented social studies origins as emanating from what might
be called the big bang theory of 1916 (Maxim, 1991; Woolever & Scott, 1988). The
big bang is centered on the notion that social studies was invented in 1916 by the
Committee on the Social Studies under the sponsorship of the National Education
Association (NEA; Dunn, 1916). Of the remaining texts, four textbooks subscribed
to a history foundation theory (Barth, 1983; Ellis, Fouts, & Glenn, 1991; Manhood,
Biemer, & Lowe, 1991; Martorella, 1991), and one textbook treated both big bang
and history foundation origins (Nelson, 1992). The history foundation theory is an
extension or deeper interpretation of the big bang theory. Here, conventional wis-
dom holds that, since history education existed before 1916, obviously history was the
seed bed or promulgator of social studies.
It may be argued that, if social studies is to be conceived as a professional field of
education, following the conventional wisdom of professional education as a whole,
the historical and philosophical constructions and underpinnings of social studies
should be included as part and parcel of the preparation of social studies practi-
tioners. The fact that the overwhelming majority of social studies methods textbooks
do not treat foundations at all may explain why many social studies practitioners have
no conception of the roots of their field.
261

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
One reason methods texts exclude or do not present much historical information
on social studies might be as simple as the fact that historical accounts are not readily
available. It would seem that one of the first places to look for the origins of social
studies is to consult the major histories of education. However, in review of a sample
of well-regarded educational histories by Cremin (1961,1988), Meyer (1957), Spring
(1990), Welter (1962), Karier (1986), Krug (1964), Tyack and Hansot (1982), Tanner
and Tanner (1990), Peterson (1985), Ravitch (1983), and Kliebard (1986), only Krug
and Kliebard treat seriously any orientation on the beginnings of social studies.
Krug (1964) presents a fair accounting of the role of the 1916 Committee on the
Social Studies of the National Education Association as the first major organization
to advocate social studies, but he presents little of the actions or thinking that
precipitated the Committee's work. Kliebard (1986) briefly mentions the 1916 Com-
mittee on the Social Studies. However, (using a history foundation theory) he
erroneously suggests that it was Committee Chairman Thomas Jesse Jones who
sought to "redirect the old academic study of history" (p. 127) into the "new form of
social studies as community civics" (p. 127).
As I shall explain later, it was Arthur William Dunn (the compiler and primary
author of the 1915 and 1916 Committee reports), not Jones, who cultivated the
notion of community civics into the final social studies report of 1916. Nonetheless,
the issue of Jones versus Dunn appears moot, because none of the 25 social studies
texts consults any of these educational histories. The lack of connection to educa-
tional histories may explain partially the dominance of the CSE theory. Although it is
troubling that well-regarded historians of education do not attend to social studies in
their histories and that those few who do are not cited in the methods texts, where,
then, do the origin theories of social studies come from?
Big Bang Examples
The most recent example of the big bang of 1916 can be found in the International
Journal of Social Education in a 1991 special issue entitled "Social Studies as a
Discipline." In this issue, one writer confidently asserts that social studies "was born
in 1916" (Larrabee, 1991, p. 51). In true big bang form, this writer cites a secondary
source as proof positive of the 1916 assertion. When the secondary source (Atwood,
1982) is checked, however, more errors are found.
In a special issue of Journal of Thought, ironically devoted to social studies
foundations, Editor Virginia Atwood claims, "With Earle Rugg serving as midwife,
social studies was 'born' in 1916" (1982, p. 8). Not only did Atwood use the big bang
date of 1916 but she also erroneously cited Earle Rugg as the originator of the field.
Earle Rugg was not connected to the 1916 social studies report in any fashion.
However, he and his brother Harold Rugg later did agitate for and help organize the
National Council for the Social Studies in 1921 ("National Council").
Michael Lybarger and David Jenness represent two researchers whose recent work
will most likely feed the big bang theory for the next decade. In his chapter on the
historiography of social studies in the massive Handbook of Research on Social
Studies Teaching and Learning (Shaver, 1991), Lybarger highlights 1916 as a birth
date for social studies. Although he was careful to hint of the lineage of social studies
pre-1916 established in his earlier works (1981), he chose not to discuss or clarify this
lineage here. In my view, this was a critical oversight. Lybarger had the opportunity
to be featured in a handbook that is destined to have great visibility in the field—a
262

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations

place where the big bang myth might have been leveled or at least questioned for
further study. Instead, he took a different tack:
The dating of events in intellectual history is often arbitrary and almost always
problematic. Nonetheless, it may be said with some certainty that the publication of
Social Studies in Secondary Education (Dunn, 1916) . . . marked the formal in-
troduction of social studies into the secondary school curriculum. (Cited in Shaver,
1991, p. 3)
Later in the chapter, Lybarger (1991) asserts:
Any effort to make a history out of the past of the social studies curriculum must
begin with the report of the Committee on the Social Studies of the Commission of
the Reorganization of Secondary Education. . . . (p. 5)
As true as these statements appear, without the context of pre-1916, what is left are
statements that point readers to a big bang origin for social studies. Lybarger's (1991)
hint that social studies had a history antedating its incorporation into the 1916 social
studies report means nothing without substantive supports. I would like to point out
that, more than any other contemporary researcher, ironically, it is Lybarger that has
added depth to the pre-1916 history of social studies. For instance, Lybarger's 1981
dissertation has been a landmark for historical research in social studies foundations.
Arguably, most, if not all, of the springboards for investigating the early years of
social studies can be found within this dissertation. Despite this early promise, for
whatever reason, the origins of social studies were badly muddled in the Handbook
chapter (Shaver, 1991).
Perhaps more problematic than Lybarger's omission is David Jenness's recent
book that claimed to make sense of social studies (1990). In a reference to Rolla
Tryon's 1935 history for the Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, Macmillan
(publisher) billed the book as "the first detailed history and study of the social studies
curriculum since the 1930s" (Jenness, 1990, dustcover). Nonetheless, one finds
another mixed message for readers. Jenness claims what might be considered as not
one but three origin dates for social studies. First, Jenness writes "the term 'social
studies' or 'the social studies' was introduced about 1916" (1990, p. 17). Three pages
earlier, Jenness writes "The branch of the school curriculum known as the social
studies took shape about 1900" (p. 14). Then, later in the book, Jenness writes,
"Around the 1910s, saw the creation, as it were, of that segment of the curriculum to
be called Social Studies" (p. 57).
To Jenness (1990), then, the branch took shape around 1900, the segment was
created in the 1910s, and the term was introduced in 1916. Curiously, still later, one
finds that Jenness notes 1916 to be "the occasion on which the 'term' social studies
became officially recognized by a national overviewing body [Commission on the
Reorganization of Secondary Education]" (p. 76). Although Jenness does treat some
pre-1916 history, readers are left to decide which date appears most authoritative.
What is most troubling and ironic is that Jenness's book was commissioned by the
National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools (1989) to be used as a
foundation for the commissioners' deliberations for taking social studies into the 21st
century. Instead of a coherent, consistent, and viable interpretation, the commis-
sioners were given a report that in many ways made little sense of the foundations of
social studies.

263

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
History Foundation Examples
Another level of research on the origins of social studies scratches beneath the
surface of the big bang of 1916. Recent representatives of this position can be found in
Oliver Keels (1988), Alberta Dougan (1988), and Hazel Hertzberg (1981, 1989).
Others who have supported this position in the past include such important writers as
Rolla Tryon (1935), Edgar Bruce Wesley (1937), N. Ray Hiner (1972,1973), James
Barth (Barr et al., 1977), and Samuel Shermis (Barr et al., 1977). Where this
scholarship might spark investigations into the origins of social studies, these works
rarely are discussed in social studies methods texts and are largely unknown among
social studies practitioners. The importance of this line of research is that it develops
a clearer conceptualization of the past of social studies prior to 1916. However,
although much of this scholarship is sound, the history foundation research does not
go far enough.
Keels (1988) is a prime example of this research position. In a recent special edition
of the International Journal of Social Education devoted to the historical foundations
of social studies, Keels declared:
In the study of the foundations of the social studies it is probably a truism that
secondary school social studies began with the study of history, (p. 37)
According to Keels (1988), this truism is supported by the fact that
history dominated the curriculum, and the college-based historians were the most
active of academic groups giving guidance to schools in their efforts to shape a social
studies curriculum, (p. 37)
Keels (1988) captures the essence of the history foundation origin of social studies
by connecting the domination of historians and history curricula pre-1916 to the
production of the 1916 social studies report. Hertzberg (1981), too, reaches a similar
conclusion by highlighting connections between the 1916 social studies report and
earlier reports issued between 1893 and 1911 by various history organizations. In
brief, for history foundation advocates, the search for the origins of social studies
begins with an examination of how history emerged in public and private schools as
well as with an examination of the development of history as a discrete discipline in
colleges and universities.
Despite connections to the development of traditional history, Hertzberg (1981)
places a good deal of emphasis on Thomas Jesse Jones's (the chairman of the Dunn,
1916, Social Studies Committee) work (1908) with African Americans and Native
Americans at Hampton Institute in the early 1900s. At one point in her 1981 Project
Span history of social studies reform, Hertzberg tentatively notes that "Jones was
probably responsible for bequeathing this name [social studies] to his committee
[1916 Social Studies Committee]" (p. 25). Eight years later, however, in her last
published work before her untimely death, Hertzberg wrote confidently (without
references) that "it was Jones who bequeathed the name social studies to the field
then known by the ungainly 'history and allied subjects' (1989, p. 85). In assuming
Hertzberg's position at Teachers College, Columbia University, as well as control of
papers connected to her uncompleted history of the social studies, perhaps
Hertzberg's student Michael Whelan, who has also taken up the history foundation
theory (1992), will be able to shed light on Hertzberg's research on Jones and the
beginnings of social studies.
264

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations

What is curious about the Hertzberg (1981, 1988) and Lybarger (1981) contribu-
tions^—Lybarger also claimed Jones as the primary source of the 1916 Committee's
brand of social studies (p. 2)—is that Jones and his social studies at Hampton were
unrelated to the development of the brand of traditional history found in the earlier
history-centered reports of the 1893 NEA Committee of Ten Subcommittee and of
the 1899 American Historical Association (AHA) Committee of Seven (known then
as the four blocks of history: ancient, medieval and modern, English, and American
histories). Thus, on one hand, researchers such as Hertzberg, Lybarger, and Jenness
found the origins of social studies embedded in the emergence of traditional history.
On the other hand, these researchers acknowledge a very different origin of social
studies through the contributions of Thomas Jesse Jones at Hampton. The sharp
disparity between the AHA's traditional history curriculum and Hampton's social
studies program, however, makes simultaneous origin claims difficult to reconcile.
Continuous Spontaneous Existence Examples
To test the validity of the CSE mythology, one needs only to question social studies
practitioners on the origins of their teaching discipline. In addition to examining
recent social studies methods texts, my informal survey of graduate students in social
studies education (typically, practicing social studies teachers) revealed an astonish-
ing lack of historical orientation. Simply put, social studies teachers have no idea
where or when or why social studies came into the school curricula, nor do they know
who or what group of individuals supported this movement. This unfortunate condi-
tion renders the past of social studies generational, particular, unique, and limited to
the tenure of the individual social studies teacher. Given this deficit, it is little wonder
that social studies practitioners, on the whole, have trouble articulating definitions,
purpose, scope, sequence, and other important policy issues. They lack basic knowl-
edge of and a sensitivity toward the historical contexts of social studies ideas,
theories, and practice.
Twenty years ago, the Hazel Hertzberg (1971) wrote of
the past of social studies live[s] not as written history, but as a kind of academic
folklore; people acquire a sense of development from their own experience and from
hearing the tales of their elders, (p. 12)
Continuing in this sentiment, O. L. Davis, Jr., (1981) has written that
social studies is largely a prisoner of the present. It knows, through its practitioners,
that it has had a past and that it expects a future; but it exists largely without
interpretive understanding. Simply, its past has no adequate history, (p. 19)
Where the big bang and history foundation theories can be discussed, the CSE
theory, because it ignores foundations altogether, is difficult to extinguish. The
telling irony of the CSE theory is that social studies teachers, who typically spend the
better part of their school efforts handling historical details, have little sense of their
profession's collective past.
Other Curiosities
I have highlighted three origin theories of social studies. However, from time to
time, other myths creep into print. For example, in a recent Theory and Research in
Social Education (TRSE) article exploring the abandonment of social studies, an
author claimed that social studies was "started by John Dewey and others to socialize
265

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
the new immigrant waves in the early part of this century" (Griffith, 1991, p. 136).
Other than those individuals or committees that used Dewey quotes to make a point
or present a case, at no time did Dewey himself acknowledge or promote social
studies.
For example, as the Committee on the Social Studies (Dunn, 1916) was formulat-
ing their curricular suggestions for the secondary school, Dewey had just published
one of his best known works, Democracy and Education (1916). The Committee,
however, did not use any of this work to support their philosophical position. Instead,
the Committee quoted from Dewey's earlier positions on elementary schooling as
their philosophical support. Moreover, with several former Columbia University
students and present Teachers College colleagues serving on the Committee, Dewey
most likely was well aware of the social studies activities. However, in Democracy and
Education, Dewey chose not to discuss social studies at all and presented a chapter on
the teaching of history and geography.
The closest Dewey ever came (in print) to acknowledging social studies was in an
article published in Progressive Education in 1938. In this brief piece, Dewey was not
supportive of social studies as a "separate line of study" (p. 369), because he believed
social studies should give "direction and organization to all branches of study"
(p. 369). Despite this disclaimer, clearly, no part of the school curriculum (past or
present) appeared as close to Deweyan thought as social studies. Nonetheless,
Dewey did not invent social studies, nor was he a member of the Social Studies
Committee (Dunn, 1916). In addition, Dewey did not write about or advocate social
studies in any social studies journals or in any other journals or in his many books. I
do not mean to depreciate the contribution of Dewey's thoughts that added to social
studies conceptualizations, for he clearly made enormous intellectual contributions.
However, Dewey's person and/or pen did not launch social studies into schools.
How reviewers of the premier social studies research journal let stand the claim
that Dewey was the originator of social studies is telling. Even the editor of the
journal missed the error, despite this editor's writing in detail about the beginnings of
social studies in an earlier social studies methods text some 25 years ago (Clements,
Fielder, & Tabachnick et al., 1966). This was not, however, the first time Dewey was
erroneously connected to social studies within the pages of TRSE.
In championing a return to romantic understandings for elementary curricula,
Kieran Egan—who was apparently Griffith's (1991) source for Dewey's alleged
association with social studies—has written a number of articles and books over the
past 10 years strongly advocating that social studies be abandoned to make room for
his curricula (Egan, 1980,1983,1986,1988,1990; Roldao & Egan, 1992). Like many
of the authors cited in this article, Egan in his antisocial studies publications does not
consult any histories of social studies or education to verify his manufactured connec-
tion of Dewey and social studies. Incredibly, Egan (1980) even admits that directly
relating Dewey to the beginnings of social studies is not relevant: "The degree to
which [Dewey's] writings have had a causal influence on the curriculum, and the steps
whereby that influence might have been felt, are not my concern" (p. 37). In his
attempt to deconstruct social studies, Egan's failure to connect Dewey to the histori-
cal origins of social studies exemplifies research that asks readers to accept arguments
on faith, not documented evidence.
TRSE isn't the only place where odd origins are popularized. In a recent special
issue of Newsweek magazine, two staff writers declared that "social studies began in
266

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations
the 1930s as an effort to make the subject more 'relevant' [with] Paul Hanna as its
original champion . . . " (Alter & Denworth, 1990, pp. 31-32). Incredibly, this
article favoring a return to history-centered curricula was entitled "A (Vague) Sense
of History."
Given that educational historians have largely ignored the past of social studies, it
is clear that a significant part of the blame for the spread of the big bang theory and
other errors rests not with historians outside social studies but with social studies
researchers themselves. The issue of who or when social studies began may appear as
picky and arcane as counting angels on the heads of pins. However, it does not matter
if one seeks to capitalize on the elastic properties of social studies as a premier model
for citizenship education or if one chooses to abandon social studies altogether.
Educational researchers, reviewers, editors, and practitioners, as well as lay authors
of major magazines, need to come to grips with the historical underpinnings of social
studies.
Raising Doubts: A Framework for Social Studies Foundations
Social studies has a past, and that past is important to its future. The following two
generalizations challenge the three origin theories of social studies and suggest an
alternative theory for building a framework of social studies foundations.
1. Not only was the term social studies common in research literature before the
founding of the 1916 Social Studies Committee but the meaning of social
studies, as defined by the 1916 Committee, was evident before the deliberations
of the Committee.
2. Social studies had a unique origin, predating 1916, apart from traditional
patterns of history instruction.
Supporting Data
Social studies in use before 1916. Beginning in 1883 with a book entitled Social
Studies in England by Sarah Bolton, the term social studies began its circulation
among social welfare advocates. Bolton's book and two other works, by Heber
Newton (1886) and Lady Jane Wilde (1893), used social studies as titles. Each of
these books (published before the turn of the century) was related to the social
welfare movement that highlighted the use of social science data. Organizations such
as the American Social Science Association (ASSA), with which Newton was con-
nected, and the British National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
with which Bolton and Wilde were connected, were devoted to application of social
science data to aid humanitarian efforts in improving the lot of urban poor. Believed
to be brought on by rapid urbanization and spreading industrialization/technology,
both these organizations cultivated the notion of disseminating ideas to improve
social conditions through education and public debate.
Perhaps the earliest call for social science applications in schools curricula was
made by Carroll D. Wright in 1887. Wright, the first U.S. Commissioner of Labor
and ASSA member, understood the importance of broadening the public appeal of
the association through public education (1887). Wright also emphasized the link
between social science instruction and good citizenship.
As social science moved from an area of study to discrete fields of research in the
1880s, the term social education was introduced as the means to activate social
welfare in public schools. In this context, social education was used as a generic term
267

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
for socially centered school curricula. That is, all of what went as appropriate school
offerings should become socialized (i.e., socialized mathematics, science, etc.). In
the 1890s, social education generalists such as Conway MacMillan (1896), Charles
DeGarmo (1897), and Colin Scott (1906,1909) were still developing the notion of a
socially centered school. By 1900, social education was being redefined and nar-
rowed to identify a special area of school curricula to be devoted expressly to social
science and citizenship concerns. This critical shift—from the generic and all-encom-
passing term of social education for all school curricula to a specific course of social
education among other educational programs—marks a symbolic beginning for
social studies in schools.
In 1897, adapting work from University of Chicago sociologists Albion Small and
George Vincent, Ira Howerth developed the idea that individuals should organize
social study clubs. These new social studies clubs (open to all citizens) were to
investigate social conditions and institutions and to study social questions. Although
not directly related to public education, Howerth's social studies highlights a social
activist element. It was this social activist idea that was picked up and developed in
the early 1900s by Arthur W. Dunn, who was to become the primary author of the
1916 Social Studies Committee report.
The first use of social studies as the term for a particular element of school curricula
was made by Edmund James, president of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences, in June of 1897. Using a model developed by natural science
supporters for use in public schools (where the individual fields of geology, mineral-
ogy, biology, etc. were grouped under the general rubric nature studies), James
suggested pulling together the social sciences for use in the lower schools under the
umbrella of "social study" (1897, p. 104).
Between 1897 and 1914, James's definition of social studies as a general term for
sociologically based citizenship education became common. Both future 1916 Social
Studies Committee leaders, Arthur Dunn and Thomas Jesse Jones, were familiar
with the term and used it in their professional writing and work. Dunn, a student of
Small and Vincent at the University of Chicago, used the term as early as 1905 as part
of a plea for reforming the history curriculum in schools (1905, 1906/1907). Most
likely, Dunn was introduced to both the term and idea of social studies while working
on his dissertation in sociology with Small and Vincent (1894).
Jones, a product of Columbia University, had used both social education and social
studies terms early in his career. His master's thesis (1899) used social education in its
title. He later used the term to describe his own curriculum at Hampton Institute
between 1902 and 1908 and even went so far as to call himself an "Instructor of Social
Studies" in his last years at Hampton. Other important educational writers—such as,
the prolific David Snedden (1907), Charles McMurry (1903), Henry Suzzalo (1913),
John Gillette (1914), and Paul Hanus (1899)—each used the term social studies in
advance of the dissemination of the 1916 Social Studies Committee report.
Given the fact that exposure of the term (pre-1916), as it developed, was as an
expression or extension of social welfare thinking and that exposure, as it emerged,
was as a curricular area that promoted civic competence, the claim that social studies
was invented in 1916 oversimplifies a complex history. Although documenting the
early use of the term levels the myth that social studies was invented in 1916, the roots
of the term, however interesting, should not obscure the more important develop-
ment of the meanings of social studies.
268

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations

Unique roots of social studies. The roots of the 1916 brand of social studies can be
found within the emergence of the field of social science (in particular sociology) in
the late 1900s, not in the discipline of history. If one uses the work of Arthur William
Dunn (secretary and compiler of the 1916 Social Studies Committee report) and
Thomas Jesse Jones (chairman of the 1916 Social Studies Committee report) as
lenses to search for the roots of social studies, one finds that both point in directions
very different from that of a historical perspective. Neither Dunn nor Jones was
trained in history, and neither included traditional history models in his teaching.
The seminal work of Small and Vincent (1894) at the University of Chicago
inspired Howerth's social studies clubs and, more importantly, motivated a young
Arthur William Dunn to begin his community civics work in Indianapolis schools just
after the turn of the century (1905, 1906/1907). Small and Vincent also influenced
John Gillette (1914), another of their University of Chicago PhDs, who developed
the first social studies curriculum by name for public schools (in South Dakota)
between 1906 and 1914. Nevertheless, Dunn's community civics program (because it
included elements of history, geography, and civics) may be the first instance of a true
social studies curriculum in the public schools.
In fact, when Dunn's work (1915) in the Indianapolis schools is compared with the
final report of the Social Studies Committee (Dunn, 1916), he appears to be the sole
author of the report. He emphasized that the purpose of social studies was in the
term's meaning as a verb—as in, good citizenship—not in its meaning as a noun—as
in, studying the content of particular social science or history subjects. Simply put,
social studies was conceived as something one does. This focus on active participation
was evident in his work at Indianapolis in the early 1900s, and it was evident in the
Social Studies Committee report.
Like Dunn, the work of Thomas Jesse Jones at Hampton Institute was rooted in
sociological themes, not history. His training at Columbia University under the
tutelage of sociologist Franklin Giddings prepared him for a life of social service
(Lybarger, 1981). He was devoted to improving the lives of disadvantaged Ameri-
cans, and he traveled extensively to other nations to spread his brand of social
welfare. Together, Dunn, Jones, and others represented a group of progressive,
styled, activist-orientated educators who were developing alternative ways of prepar-
ing young Americans for citizenship.
In addition to examining the work of individuals to help shed light on the origin
theories, when the history foundation theory is presented, supporters of this position
overlook the newness of the traditional history program. By 1902, when critics began
to question the value and application of the history program developed by the
committees of the National Education Association (1893) and the American Histori-
cal Association (1899), the traditional history program for public schools was less
than a decade old in conception and perhaps only a few years old in application. The
earliest critics of the traditional history program were housed within the history
camp. But these individuals did not, of course, intend to eliminate history from
school curricula. The critics who aimed to push traditional history out of school
curricula—critics like David Snedden, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education
and, later, Teachers College professor—clearly worked from a sociological frame-
work. John Dewey, whom many have argued was the philosophical force behind
social studies ideas, also examined traditional history and found it wanting (1897).
However, it should be recalled that Dewey chose to highlight history and geography
in his writings, not social studies (see Dewey, 1916, pp. 207-218).
269

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe

Despite pressure from critics like Snedden and Dewey, the members of the
American Historical Association (who had led the effort to establish history-
centered curricula into schools) declined to adjust their curricula to include the
upstart social studies. Although the early battles between social studies theorists and
traditional historians may have been more symbolic than real, what was clear was that
the social studies movement was very different from traditional history. The distinc-
tion between social studies conceptualizations and traditional history conceptualiza-
tions was articulated not only by social studies theorists and traditional historians but
also by school teachers.
At the 1914 meeting of the Pennsylvania Educational Association (PEA), teachers
debated the value and difference between history and the upstart social studies. One
principal emphasized that "civics [social studies] should be a part of [schooling] but
by no means all of it" (PEA, 1914, p. 222). Reducing the distinction between social
studies and history to other terms, this principal asserted that "the gods and god-
desses of Ancient Greece [traditional history] are engaged in mighty conflict with the
ashman and garbage collector of to-day [social studies]" (PEA, 1914, p. 222).
Responding directly to the preliminary statement of the Social Studies Committee
(Jones, 1913), another teacher at the 1914 PEA meeting suggested that the "social
studies" [idea] sound[ed] like heresy" (PEA, 1914, p. 253).
What, then, were the origins of social studies? Certainly, the social studies move-
ment did not emerge as an afterthought among educators or historians in the 1910s.
The foundation for the beginnings of the social studies movement was laid in the
1880s and early 1890s as part of a larger progressive social welfare agenda. The social
studies conceptualization was rooted in the efforts of the American Social Science
Association as a means to further the cause of social improvement (social welfare).
The ASSA explicitly chose to apply a collective social science as the basis of social
welfare activities, not the discrete subject matters of sociology, anthropology, politi-
cal science, psychology, history, or geography.
To the social welfare activists, social science was conceived of as a general area of
inquiry drawn from these discrete subjects to help solve societal problems. This
general or holistic approach to treating social issues and problems surfaced in
educational circles, first under the rubric social education and then, finally, as social
studies. What is critical to identify here is that no single methodology or field of study
was to dominate and that every social science (including history and geography)
could be used to facilitate social improvement through citizenship education.
Between 1884 and 1905, as each of the discrete social sciences became organized as
separate legitimate academic fields of study, the general "problems approach" of the
ASSA became viewed as obsolete in academic circles (Ross, 1991). Although this
major paradigm shift had occurred within the newly fashioned discrete subject fields
of social science, suggesting that academics had focused their research attentions
within their own specialties, public school leaders were inclined to continue with the
notion of a general field approach toward citizenship education. Whereas viability of
the ASSA may have ended in 1909 (Hiner, 1973), one aspect of its organizational
legacy continued through the advocates of social studies. Indeed, the fundamental
basis, well-formed by 1911, for the reorganization of secondary school subjects
continued with this progressive, generalist approach. By 1912, educational literature
of the period turned decidedly progressive, highlighting articles and books of all sorts
that issued appeals for social efficiency, social welfare, social purpose, and social
education (Krug, 1964; Saxe, 1991).
270

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations
At the height of this call for more efficient and purposeful schooling, Clarence D.
Kingsley (1913) launched his Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary
School Subjects. Kingsley's idea of reforming education in a modern social light was
presented to the National Education Association in 1910 and was eventually formal-
ized as the Committee on the Articulation of High School and College (NEA, 1911,
1912). In the first report of this organization, Kingsley suggested six major areas of
study: English, social science, natural science, physical training, mathematics, and
foreign language (1911, pp. 562-563). Reflecting the generalist approach, it is
important to note that social science replaced history as the primary focus for
citizenship education in schools. By 1913, Kingsley's suggestion of social science was
formed into the Committee on Social Science when the Committee on Articulation
was retitled and expanded into the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary
School Subjects. After Thomas Jesse Jones was named chairman, the Committee
title shifted from social science to social studies. Whether the change was Jones' idea
or that of another staffer is not clear in the minutes or in other contemporary accounts
by the Committee.
The Committee on Social Studies came to advocate a program of active participa-
tion that included two major interdisciplinary courses (Community Civics and Prob-
lems of American Democracy). Furthermore, the final report of the Committee
(Dunn, 1916) specifically called for the curricular integration of social science,
history, and geography for secondary school curricula. In sharp contrast, the 1899
AHA Committee of Seven sought to control and shape school curricula through
traditional history approaches that called for history as the centerpiece of school
activity. Contemporary educational theorists like Snedden and Dewey, as did public
school teachers, understood social studies was not a derivative of traditional history
but a separate and unique construction. In sum, the problems related to the reluc-
tance of traditional historians to change the way history was treated in school
programs, together with the problems related to rapid industrialization, urbaniza-
tion, and massive immigration, merely created the opportunity for social studies
ideas to enter school politics—these conditions did not generate the social studies
conceptualization.
Perhaps, Sam Shermis's atomic physics analogy of critical mass (1989) captures the
essence of the emergence of the Committee on Social Studies in 1916 (Dunn). By this
time, the critical mass needed to launch social studies into schools—the social
efficiency movement (Snedden, 1907), social welfare movement (Dunn, 1905), and
new history movement (Robinson, 1912)—was present and accounted for. Note: The
idea of critical mass implies a big bang outcome. However, what is meant here is that
the ingredients for the committee's emergence were present, not that social studies
was created in 1916.
The two principal figures of the Committee on Social Studies were Dunn and
Jones, and their curricular roots were clearly outside of the circle of traditional
history. Even the few historians that joined social studies, such as James Harvey
Robinson (1910,1912), Charles Beard (1913), and William Mace (1898), joined the
social studies movement after the primary social studies conceptualizations were
formed. Thus, the addition of Robinson was important from a political-symbolic
standpoint, not as an original contribution to the social studies idea. That is, Robin-
son did not create a specialized treatment of history exclusively for the social studies
program. Rather, Robinson's new history happened to fit the requirements of the
271

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
social studies brand of history that insisted all history be focused on helping students
understand present conditions and problems.
The 1916 social studies program was not a reworking of earlier NEA (1893) and
AHA (1899) history-centered committees. It represented a conceptualization devel-
oped from the social welfare movement originating in the 1850s. The 1916 social
studies program was energized, however, by the inability of traditional history
advocates to reform their own program. After the American Historical Association
(1912) refused to alter the Committee of Seven's original four-block plan, social
studies insurgents seized the opportunity to effect curricular change. Between 1911
and 1913, Clarence Kingsley (see Kingsley, 1913) organized the Commission on the
Reorganization of Secondary Education. One of the most active and successful
committees of that Commission was the Committee on Social Studies. The Commit-
tee on Social Studies clearly rejected the traditional history program of the Commit-
tee of Seven and the Committee of Ten as grossly unsuitable and inappropriate for
American students and made no attempt to reconstruct any portion of the popular
four-block system of the American Historical Association.
Summary
In answer to the myths of social studies foundations, one should acknowledge the
1916 social studies report (Dunn) as a benchmark document in the history of
American education, perhaps the first nationwide curricular expression devoted to a
developmental citizenship education for all Americans. One should not conclude,
however, that the creation of the prototype social studies program holds any exclusive
claim to the invention of citizenship education. Nonetheless, it is naive to assume that
the 1916 report on social studies had no antecedent.
Although elements of history instruction can be found in the 1916 social studies
report, simply because history is present in the 1916 report, even that history was
taught in schools prior to 1916. One should not conclude that the type of history
described in the social studies program was the equivalent of or the outgrowth of the
traditional history patterns cultivated by the AHA and NEA committees of the late
1890s.
Finally, the 1916 social studies report was a reflection of progressive writers with
sociological backgrounds and dispositions. Certainly the search for the origins of
social studies may be initiated by an examination of the 1916 social studies report, yet
the real foundations of social studies must push beyond this report back into the
formation of the social welfare movement in the 19th century. Although other
specific historical treatments that impact the history of social studies were not
discussed here due to the limited scope of this review, general works by Ross (1991),
Cuban (1984), Franklin (1986), Westbrook (1991), Haskell (1977), Goodson (1985),
Saxe (1991), and Furner (1975) should assist practitioners and theorists of social
studies and education with the examination of the historical complexities and signifi-
cance surrounding the emergence of social studies.
Researching and exposing the roots of social studies may be as important as any
work in the field today because they can help reestablish social studies as a dynamic
field of study for cultivating civic competence. For the field to recapture the spirit of
excitement found in Michener's 1939 bulletin, the myths surrounding the origins of
social studies must be leveled. In addition, before social studies educators can begin
to articulate a clearer vision of social studies present and future, the past of social
272

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations
studies must be reconnected to its practitioners and theorists. If this is possible, the
history of social studies is just beginning.
References
Alter, J., & Denworth, L. (1990 Fall/Winter). A (vague) sense of history [Special issue].
Newsweek, pp. 31-33.
American Historical Association. (1899). The study of history in schools. (Report of the AHA
Committee of Seven). New York: Macmillan.
American Historical Association. (1912). The study of history in schools (Report of the AHA
Committee of Five). New York: Macmillan.
Armstrong, D. (1980). Social studies in secondary education. New York: Macmillan.
Atwood, V. (1982). A historical perspective of social studies. Journal of Thought, 17(3), 7-11.
Banks, J. A. (1990). Teaching strategies for the social studies. New York: Longman.
Barr, J., Barth, J., & Shermis, S. (1977). Defining the social studies [Bulletin No. 51].
Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
Barth, J. L. (1983). Elementary, junior high/middle school social studies curriculum, activities,
and materials. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. (1970). Defining the social studies: An exploration of three
traditions. Social Education, 34(1), 743-750.
Beard, C. (1913). Training for citizenship. Proceedings of the Association of History Teachers of
the Middle States and Maryland, 11, 53-58.
Bolton, S. (1883). Social studies in England. London: Lathrop.
Chapin, J., & Messick, R. (1989). Elementary social studies. New York: Longman.
Clements, H. M., Fielder, W. R., & Tabachnick, B. R. (Eds.). (1966). Social study: Inquiry in
elementary classrooms. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Knopf.
Cremin, L. (1988). American education: The metropolitan experience 1876-1980. New York:
Harper & Row.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms
1890-1980. New York: Longman.
Davis, O. L., Jr. (1981). Understanding the history of the social studies. In H. Mehlinger &
O. L. Davis, Jr., (Eds.), Eightieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education:
Part II. The social studies (pp. 19-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DeGarmo, C. (1897). Social aspects of moral education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), Third
yearbook of the National Herbart Society (pp. 35-57). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1897). Ethical principles underlaying education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), Third
yearbook of the National Herbart Society (pp. 7-34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1938). What is social study? Progressive Education, 15(5), 367-369.
Dobkin, W., Fisher, J., Ludwig, B., & Koblinger, R. (1985). Handbook for the teaching of
social studies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dougan, A. (1988). The search of a definition of social studies: A historical overview. Interna-
tional Journal of Social Education, 5(3), 13-36.
Dunn, A. W. (1905). Is history in schools a 'snap'? If so why? Educational Review, 24,410-418.
Dunn, A. W. (1906/1907). Community and the citizen. Boston: Heath. (Original work pub-
lished 1906)
Dunn, A. W. (1915). Civic education in elementary schools as illustrated in Indianapolis (U.S.
Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 17). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dunn, A. W. (1916). Social studies in secondary education (NEA report, U.S. Bureau of
Education Bulletin No. 28). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Egan, K. (1980). John Dewey and the social studies curriculum. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 8(2), 37-55.

273

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe

Egan, K. (1983). Social studies and the erosion of education. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(2),
195-214.
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as story telling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1988). Primary understanding. New York: Routledge.
Egan, K. (1990). Romantic understanding. New York: Routlege.
Ellis, A. K. (1991). Teaching and learning elementary social studies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ellis, A. K., Fouts, J., & Glenn, A. (1991). Teaching and learning secondary social studies. New
York: Harper Collins.
Evans, J., & Brueckner, M. (1990). Elementary social studies teaching for today and tomorrow.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fraenkel, J. (1985). Helping students thin and value. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Franklin, B. (1986). Building the American community: The school curriculum and the search
for social control. London: Falmer.
Furner, M. (1975). Advocacy and objectivity: A crisis in the professionalization of American
social science, 1865-1905. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Gillette, J. (1914). An outline of social studies for elementary schools. American Journal of
Sociology, 19, 491-509.
Goodson, I. (Ed.). (1985). School histories of the secondary curriculum: Subjects for study.
London: Falmer.
Griffith, B. (1991). The abandonment of social studies? Theory and Research in Social Educa-
tion, 19(2), 136-151.
Hanna, P. (1934). Social studies in the new Virginia curriculum. Progressive Education, 11(1),
129-134.
Hanna, P., Anderson, G., & Gray, W. (1936). Curriculum foundation series. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman, & Co.
Hanus, P. (1899). Secondary education. Educational Review, 17, 346-363.
Haskell, T. (1977). The emergence ofprofessional social science. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Hennings, D. H., Hennings, G., & Banich, S. F. (1989). Today's elementary social studies. New
York: Harper & Row.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1971). Historical parallels for the sixties and the seventies: Primary sources
and core curriculum revisited. Boulder, CO: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social
Science Education.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1981). Social studies reform 1880-1980. Boulder, CO: Social Science
Education Consortium.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1988). Are method and content enemies? In B. R. Gifford (Ed.), History in
the schools (pp. 13-40). New York: Macmillan.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1989). History and progressivism: A century of reform proposals. In
P. Gagnon (Ed.), Historical literacy (pp. 69-99). New York: Macmillan.
Hiner, N. R. (1972). Professions in process: Changing relations between historians and educa-
tors, 1896-1911. History of Education Quarterly, 12(1), 34-56.
Hiner, N. R. (1973). Professions in process: Changing relations among social scientists, histo-
rians, and educators, 1880-1920. History Teacher, 6(2), 201-218.
Howerth, I. (1897). A programme for social study. American Journal of Sociology, 2(6),
852-872.
James, E. (1897). The place of political and social sciences in modern education. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 10, 359-388.
Jarolimek, J. (1990). Social studies in elementary education. New York: Macmillan.
Jenness, D. (1990). Making sense of social studies. New York: Macmillan.
Jones, T. J. (1899). Social education and the elementary school. Unpublished master's thesis,
Columbia University, New York.
Jones, T. J. (1908). Social studies in the Hampton curriculum. Hampton, VA: Hampton
Institute Press.

274

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations

Jones, T. J. (1913). Statement of the Chairman of the Committee on Social Studies. In C. D.

Kingsley (Ed.), Preliminary statement of the Chairman of the Committee of the National
Education Association on the reorganization of secondary education (U.S. Bureau of Educa-
tion Bulletin No. 41). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kaltsounis, T. (1987). Teaching social studies in the elementary school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Karier, C. (1986). The individual, society, and education: A history of educational ideas.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Keels, O. M. (1988). Herbert Baxter Adams and the influence of the American Historical
Association of the early social studies. International Journal of Social Education, 5(3), 37-49.
Kingsley, C. D. (1913). The reorganization of secondary education (NEA preliminary commis-
sion report, U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 41). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Kliebard, H. (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958. Boston: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Krug, E. (1964). The shaping of the American high school 1880-1920. New York: Harper &
Row.
Larrabee, L. (1991). Social studies a field of dreams? International Journal of Social Education,
6(2), 51-56.
Lybarger, M. (1981). Origins of the social studies curriculum: 1865-1916. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Lybarger, M. (1991). The historiography of social studies: Retrospect, circumspect, and pros-
pect. In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning
(pp. 3-15). New York: Macmillan.
Mace, W. (1898). Method in history. Boston: Ginn.
MacMillan, C. (1896). The sociological basis of school education. Education, 16(6), 331-335.
Manhood, W., Biemer, L., & Lowe, W. (1991). Teaching social studies in middle and senior high
schools. New York: Merrill.
Martorella, P. (1991). Teaching social studies in middle and secondary schools. New York:
Macmillan.
Maxim, G. W. (1991). Social studies and the elementary school child. New York: Merrill.
McMurry, C. (1903). Special method in history. New York: Macmillan.
Meyer, A. (1957). An educational history of the American people. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Michaelis, J. (1988). Social studies for children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Michaelis, J., & Rushdoony, H. (1987). Elementary social studies handbook. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.
Michener, J. A. (1939). The future of the social studies. (Curriculum Series No. 1). Cambridge,
MA: National Council for the Social Studies.
Michener, J. A. (1991). James A. Michener on the social studies. Washington, DC: National
Council for the Social Studies.
National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. (1989). Charting a course: Social studies
for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
National Council for the Social Studies, A. (1921). Historical Outlook, 72(4), p. 144.
National Education Association. (1893). History, civil government, and political economy
(NEA Committee of Ten Subcommittee report). In Report on secondary school studies
(pp. 162-203). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Education Association. (1911). Report of the Committee of Nine on the articulation of
high school and college. In Addresses and proceedings (pp. 559-567). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
National Education Association. (1912). Report of the Committee of Nine on the articulation of
high school and college. In Addresses and proceedings (pp. 667-669). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Naylor, D., & Diem, R. (1987). Elementary and middle social studies. New York: Random
House.

275

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
Saxe
Nelson, M. (1992). Children and social studies. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.
Newton, H. (1886). Social studies. New York: Putnam.
Pennsylvania Education Association. (1914). High school program of studies: Constants and
electives. History and civics. In Proceedings (pp. 220-225, 252-260). Lancaster, PA: Penn-
sylvania School Journal.
Peterson, P. (1985). The politics of school reform 1870-1940. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade. New York: Basic.
Robinson, J. H. (1910). The significance of history in industrial education. Education Bi-
Monthly, 4, 376-389.
Robinson, J. H. (1912). The new history. New York: Macmillan.
Roldao, M., &Egan, K. (1992, April). The social studies curriculum: The case for its abolition.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Rugg, E. (1923). How the current courses in history, geography, and civics came to be what they
are. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), Twenty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education (pp. 49-75). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.
Rugg, H. (1921). Needed changes in the committee procedure on restructuring social studies.
Elementary School Journal, 21, 688-702.
Rugg, H. (1929). An introduction to American civilization. Boston: Ginn.
Savage, T., & Armstrong, D. (1992). Effective teaching in elementary social studies. New York:
Macmillan.
Saxe, D. (1991). Social studies in schools: A history of the early years. Albany: SUNY.
Schuncke, G. (1988). Elementary social studies. New York: Macmillan.
Scott, C. (1906). Social education. Boston: Ginn.
Scott, C. (1909). Social education. Education, 30(1,2,3), 67-73, 163-172, 210-215.
Shaver, J. (Ed.). (1991). Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning. New
York: Macmillan.
Shermis, S. (1989). World War I catalyst of the creation of the social studies. Social Studies,
80(1), 11-15.
Small, A., & Vincent, G. (1894). An introduction to the study of society. New York: American.
Snedden, D. (1907). History as instrument in the social education of children. Journal of
Pedagogy, 19, 259-268.
Spring, J. (1990). The American school 1642-1990. New York: Longman.
Suzzalo, H. (1913). Education as social study. School Review, 16(5), 330-340.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1990). History of the school curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Tryon, R. (1935). The social sciences as school subjects. New York: Scribner's.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America,
1820-1980. New York: Basic.
United States Department of Education. (1991). America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Van Cleaf, D. (1991). Action in elementary social studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Welter, R. (1962). Popular education and democratic thought in America. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Welton, D., & Mallan, J. (1987). Children and their world. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Wesley, E. B. (1937). Teaching the social studies. New York: D. C. Heath.
Westbrook, R. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Whelan, M. (1992). History and the social studies: A response to the critics. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 20(1), 2-16.
Wilde, L. J. (1893). Social studies. London: Ward & Downy.
Wright, C. (1887). Popular instruction in social science. Journal of Social Science, 22, 28-35.

276

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
 Theory for Social Studies Foundations

Woolever, R., & Scott, K. (1988). Active learning in social studies. Boston: Scott, Foresman/
Little, Brown.
Zevin, J. (1992). Social studies for the twenty-first century. New York: Longman.

Author
DAVID WARREN SAXE is Professor-in-Charge, Social Studies Education, Pennsylvania
State University, College of Education, 144 Chambers Building, University Park, PA 16802.
He specializes in social studies education and historical foundations of education.

Received December 20, 1991

Revision received May 20, 1992
Accepted May 20, 1992

277

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at The University of Auckland Library on March 22, 2015
This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]
On: 05 January 2015, At: 01:24
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Pedagogical Content
Knowledge in Social Studies
a b
Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman
a
Sigrun Gudmundsdottir, doctoral student,
Stanford University School of Education ,
California
b
Lee Shulman, Professor, Stanford University
School of Education , Stanford, CA 94305,
California
Published online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman (1987) Pedagogical
Content Knowledge in Social Studies, Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 31:2, 59-70, DOI: 10.1080/0031383870310201

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383870310201

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
 Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
 Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Social Studies
SIGRUN GUDMUNDSDOTTIR & LEE SHULMAN

Abstract: Gudmundsdottir, S. & Shulman, L. 1987. Pedagogical Content Knowledge

in Social Studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 31, 59-70. The role
of teacher's pedagogical content knowledge in social studies is addressed through two
case studies: a novice and a veteran teacher. We demonstrate that the important
difference between the novice and the expert is manifested in a special kind of
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015

knowledge that is neither content nor pedagogy per se. It rests instead in pedagogical
content knowledge, a form of teacher understanding that combines content, pedagogy
and learner characteristics in a unique way.
Sigrun Gudmundsdottir, doctoral student, Stanford University School of Education,
California.
Lee Shulman, Professor, Stanford University School of Education, California. Address:
Stanford, CA 94305.

INTRODUCTION Chris, the novice teacher, is in a teacher

What do expert teachers know about their
subject matter that novice teachers do
not? We approach this question by con-
trasting the pedagogical content knowl-
edge of two social studies teachers, a vet-
eran teacher and a novice. Previously,
our work in the Growth of Knowledge in
Teaching project has focused on novice
teachers.1 Veteran teachers have been the
subject of two doctoral dissertations
related to the Growth of Knowledge in
Teaching project (Hasweh 1985; Gud-
mundsdottir in progress). The present
study is the first time we attempt a com-
parison of expert and novice teachers
using our theoretical framework as a
guide.
The two teachers teach social studies
in high schools in the San Francisco Bay
area. Harry is a veteran teacher who has
been teaching for thirty-seven years.2
While he is a historian with expertise in
the American Revolution, he has taught
a range of subjects within social studies.
This study focuses on him teaching US
history to juniors.
education program learning to become
a social studies teacher. He teaches one
freshmen's class in world studies. He
recently graduated in anthropology from a
private university in Northern California.
Chris's expertise within anthropology is
cultural anthropology and human evol-
ution. While both Harry and Chris are
fine scholars in their field, there is a fun-
damental difference in their command
over their subject matter for teaching, or
what we call pedagogical content knowl-
edge. We are interested in the ways in
which the expert teacher knows his sub-
ject matter and can do things in the class-
room that the novice teacher cannot do.
We are especially interested in this ques-
tion from the perspective of the subject
matter they are teaching.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The comparison between the expert and
novice is based on a Model of Pedagogical
Reasoning proposed by L. Shulman
(1986). This model suggests that in pre-
 60 Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman

paration and teaching, teachers draw on Pedagogical content knowledge that is

sources of knowledge which are ident- influenced by content knowledge includes
ified: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge of the central topics, concepts,
content knowledge, curricular knowl- and areas of the subject matter that can
edge, general pedagogical knowledge, be and are taught to students. For
knowledge of aims and purposes, knowl- example, in mathematics, teachers know
edge of learners, and knowledge of edu- that students must learn addition, mul-
cational contexts, settings and govern- tiplication and substration and so on. In
ance. Shulman suggests that these sources social studies students learn the history of
of understanding make possible the pro- their own country before they learn world
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015

cess of pedagogical reasoning and action. history. Content knowledge is required

The model describes how a teacher's for knowledge and understanding of the
understanding of subject matter is trans- order which concepts, topics or areas
formed to make it 'teachable'. This pro- within a subject can be, and are being
cess of transformation taps the different taught, and the advantages and dis-
sources of knowledge, the most important advantages of each approach. Also,
being pedagogical content knowledge. It knowledge of analogies, similes, examples
is this way of knowing and understanding and metaphors by which to explain the
the subject matter that distinguishes the subject matter to students requires con-
teacher from the subject matter specialist. tent knowledge.
We suggest that pedagogical content The term curriculum potential was
knowledge is both built with and builds introduced by Ben-Peretz (1975). It
upon content knowledge, general peda- focuses on a long known fact, namely,
gogical knowledge, and knowledge of that curriculum materials are far more
learners. It is not unreasonable to assume complex and richer in ideas than devel-
that pedagogical content knowledge opers intended. Ben-Peretz suggests that
should draw on this kind of knowledge, there are other activities and ideas con-
since college graduates who want to tained within a given curriculum material,
become high school teachers are required be it broad guidelines or a textbook, than
to have a bachelor degree in a subject, the curriculum makers explicitly state.
and take courses on teaching methods and The Pedagogical Reasoning Model
theories of learning. assumes that content knowledge is influ-
There are three clearly defined areas ential in realizing curriculum potential.
in pedagogical content knowledge, each Research on innovation shows that teach-
influenced by one type of knowledge, yet ers realize the potential of the curricula
qualitatively different from the sources. they teach since almost all teachers change
There is pedagogical content knowledge it (Berman & McLaughlin 1975). Ben-
that is influenced by content knowledge. Peretz suggests that several factors deter-
Grossman, Reynolds, Ringstaff & Sykes mine the potential of curricula: content
(1985) report that the student teachers knowledge, understanding the philosophy
they worked with shifted their orientation of the curriculum, curriculum devel-
to the subject matter as a result of teaching opment experience, feeling for classroom
experiences. Gudmundsdottir, Carey & reality, knowledge of learners and open-
Wilson (1985) observed that student ness to new ideas.
teachers modelled the courses they were Knowing the different ways topics can
teaching after their content knowledge. be taught, and the pros and cons of each

approach, is pedagogical content knowl-
edge that is influenced by general peda-
gogical knowledge. The complexities of
some issues or topics can best be under-
stood by students in a simulation or a
demonstration. For example, Chris taught
the theory of evolution by showing stu-
dents the skulls of primates and humans.
To Chris, that was the most appropriate
way to present a complex idea.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
Pedagogical content knowledge that is
influenced by knowledge of students
includes knowledge of students precon-
ceptions or misconceptions about the
topics they learn. For example, a veteran
social studies teacher claims that year
after year he gets classes full of students
who think that slavery was the sole cause
of the Civil War (Gudmundsdottir, in pro-
gress). Knowledge of the topics students
find interesting, difficult or easy to learn
is pedagogical content knowledge that is
influenced by knowledge of students. For
example, a veteran social studies teacher
claims that students find it more difficult
to comprehend history that is taught the-
matically rather than chronologically.
We suggest that a solid body of peda-
gogical content knowledge distinguishes
the veteran from the novice in teaching.
Chris clearly did not have much of this
kind of knowledge. His tendency was to
draw directly on his content knowledge as
he learned it in college. He employed
activities his college professors had used
in college classes and he looked for exam-
ples in college texts. Most of his knowl-
edge of learning and motivation also came
from his college class. He used terms from
college classes to describe and justify his
pedagogical approach. However, at the
end of a successful year as an intern, Chris
had developed ideas of his own. He had
begun to develop his pedagogical content
knowledge. The source of his ideas were
his teacher education classes, but by now
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 61
these had been flavored with his short
teaching experience.
METHODOLOGY
The data for this study consist of tran-
scribed interviews, transcribed classroom
taperecordings, observer's notes, and
documents collected during field work.
Data collection covered a period of 12
months for the novice teacher during the
1984-1985 academic year.
Harry, the experienced teacher, is one
of four cases in the first author's doctoral
dissertation (in progress). This dissert-
ation comes out of the Growth of Knowl-
edge in Teaching project. Harry was
approached after being recommended as
an experienced teacher by his principal.
Chris, the novice teacher, was selected
from a group of volunteers from a teacher
education program. He is one of 21 sub-
jects in the Growth of Knowledge in
Teaching project. Both Chris and Harry
were subjected to similar interview ques-
tions and observations. However, since
Chris was part of a larger research project,
he was interviewed more often on topics
not covered in this paper. Chris and Harry
both worked with the same researcher and
were excellent informants, reflective and
articulate.
The data on these two teachers are dif-
ferent in nature and volume. Harry was
interviewed 3 times, but observed 22
times. Chris was interviewed 8 times in
regular interviews. He was also inter-
viewed as part of 6 planning cycles, each
of which was comprised of a pre-obser-
vation interview, one day of observation,
and post observation interview.
The interviews in which both Chris and
Harry participated focused on their con-
ception of subject matter, the course they
were teaching, students in the class, and
 62 Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman
their approaches to transforming their
content knowledge. All classroom tape-
recordings were transcribed verbatim. In
the planning cycle, the pre-observation
interview focused on Chris' preparation
for teaching. It was a 'think aloud' session
about what he was going to teach. The
post-observation interview was a de-
briefing session that took place either
immediately after he taught the class
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
where he was observed or a few hours
later.
Initial data analysis consisted of writing
summaries of each interview for Chris,
and writing vignettes for Harry. The vig-
nettes focused on topics covered in inter-
views: conception of subject matter,
transforming the subject matter for the
general track student as well as for those
students preparing for college attendance,
the course and textbook, and so on. The
topics for the vignettes were determined
by the interview questions and other infor-
mation that emerged spontaneously from
the data. The topics for the vignettes were
major coding categories in initial data
analysis. In preparing the vignettes, the
data coded for each vignette were brought
together and analyzed. Writing the vig-
nettes was a first attempt in making sense
of these topics within each case. This
approach of reducing massive data proved
to be both productive and rewarding in
terms of generating ideas.
Next, we will present our two cases
focusing on few, but critical, issues in their
pedagogical content knowledge: content
knowledge, curriculum potential, their
views on the advantages and disad-
vantages of the different approaches to
teaching content, scholarly integrity, and
uses of pedagogical knowledge.
HARRY
Harry is a veteran social studies teacher
who majored in history in college. He
went to graduate school and earned a
master's degree specializing in the Ameri-
can Revolution. He has been teaching for
37 years. This study focuses on Harry
teaching US history. He sees the history
of the United States as the story of the
growth of opportunities for participation
in the democratic process. He argues that
US history is best captured in a theme
that focuses on the struggle of Americans
to get their 'share of the American pie'.
This view of history makes certain periods
critical, like the constitution, Jefferson,
Jackson and the coming of the Civil War.
Thirty-seven years of teaching history
have made Harry see more in US history
than the growth of opportunities. He rec-
ognizes a rich potential in US history
(Ben-Peretz 1975). This knowledge also
reveals extensive knowledge of segment-
ing and structuring historical facts to come
up with many different stories of his coun-
try. Moreover, Harry knows what key
events and ideas each story tells well or
leaves out. It is important to note that he
has told many of those stories in his long
career.
One year we taught all our American history as
the history of Black struggle. [Interview 3.6]
While Black history highlights certain
events and ideas in American history,
there are important ideas that are left out.
What you end up not doing are certain familiar
things that maybe are important to a person
outside the Black community which is essentially
a white context. The struggle of slaves for free-
dom in Jacksonian America doesn't reflect all
the important issues of Jacksonian America.
[Interview 3.6]
The third way to teach American history
is to look at it outside a political context
and focus on economic growth. He has

never done it, but includes a heavy dose of
economics in the approaches he currently
uses. A fourth way to teach American
history is to teach it topically which he
does not like and, therefore, has never
done. The disadvantages of a topical story
of the United States is that it does not
demonstrate to Harry's satisfaction causes
and effects and the logic of events. A fifth
way is the judicial approach that many of
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
Harry's colleagues have used, but he sees
it as 'merely political in a different sense'.
A sixth way to teach American history is
to look at it as a course in American
studies with an emphasis on American
culture. This is an approach he has tried
and liked.
This extensive knowledge of the poten-
tial of American history, and of seg-
menting and structuring that story, has
led Harry to realize that there is one
period that is more important tharf others.
In Harry's view, students will not under-
stand American history without under-
standing the Age of Jackson. There are
three key ideas in the Age of Jackson that
must get across to students if they are to
understand their history: the growth of
democracy, the growth of industry, and
the potential for conflict.
The Age of Jackson, the most critical
period in American history, has been the
subject of Harry's most innovative teach-
ing. He has frequently used simulations
when teaching Jackson.
Let's look at the manner in which the Age of
Jackson exclusively restricts civil rights to free
white males. Now, let's look at one group that
has been excluded and see what American
society and Andrew Jackson does about the
Indian.
Well, they decided to move all the Indians east
of the Mississippi out West and this is most
vividly dramatized in the fate of the Cherokee,
who were moved out of Tennessee in the Trail
of Tears to Oklahoma.
Jackson was acting in direct violation of a
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 63
decision of the Supreme Court. He was doing
that which was unconstitutional. He was so popu-
lar that they were not about to impeach him.
But, we decided, let's impeach him.
So, we would hold a trial where the greatest
number of kids were the US senate where trials
of impeachment have to be held. Others acted
as the prosecutor, the defense, and other people
as witnesses. We said: let's dramatize in this all
the issues of the rights of people, the rights to be
involved in the interference of the government
and the dangers of government intervening in
your lives, the dangers of excluding some people
while you include some others. Let's bring all of
those out in a trial of impeachment of Andrew
Jackson. [Interview 3.14]
This is only one example of innovative
teaching that Harry has used when teach-
ing this critical period. In his view, simul-
ation captures best the complexities of
the issues in the Age of Jackson. In this
excerpt it is evident how Harry is able to
segment and structure a story that
includes many important ideas: civil
rights, growth of opportunity for par-
ticipation in the democratic process, inter-
ference of government, potential for con-
flict, the constitution, and the Supreme
Court. The story he comes up with is
cohesive and dramatic and likely to cap-
ture the imagination of students.
As we can see in the stories that Harry
is able to come up with, his content knowl-
edge is important to his teaching. Harry
feels he cannot teach a subject that he
does not know as a scholar. This is exem-
plified in a recent teaching experience.
Last year, Harry taught a course in
anthropology. He found it difficult
because he had no sense of the discipline
of anthropology and how it was devel-
oping. His feeling for history as a disci-
pline and knowledge of the problems that
excite researchers working at the frontiers
of historical knowledge is essential to his
pedagogical content knowledge.
As a historian with expert knowledge
 64 Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman

on American history, Harry feels that he
has to compromise when teaching Ameri-
can history to high school students.
Teaching high school history forces you to
compromise to the extent that you would popu-
larize. [Interview 3.1]
Having to compromise historical integrity
troubles him, but he realizes that there is
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
the important issues. In Harry's current
teaching situation, one teacher, one
room, and one class, it was the best way
to get the Age of Jackson across to stu-
dents in all its complexities.
CHRIS
The novice teacher is an anthropologist

no way he can teach everything as well as who, at the time of this study, was in
he would like. He settles for teaching a a teacher education program learning to
few things well at the price of ignoring become a social studies teacher. As part
issues that may not be as important. The of the teacher education program, Chris
story of Jefferson is one in which he teaches world studies, or social studies,
regretfully compromises. in a local high school. Chris's areas of
expertise are cultural anthropology and
The complete story of Jefferson to a high school human evolution and his special interests
class is impossible. In all the dimensions of this within anthropology are anthropological
man, I end up, whether I like it or not, making research methods, like those used by cul-
him the adversary of Hamilton, the president of
the United States, and if I want to tell them that tural anthropologists and researchers
he was a great man, I have a very prejudiced investigating human evolution. Chris has
amount of information and I have lost sight of done ethnographic field work in a village
what is the true essence of Jefferson. I'm in Greece studying returning migrant
bothered to the extent that as a historian I chide workers. He also worked as a research
myself and say that the picture I present of the
man was absolutely vital to understanding our assistant to professors investigating
own American history. [Interview 3.11] human evolution. Both these research
experiences have been important influ-
Harry is a talented storyteller and an ences on his conception of anthropology.
excellent discussion leader. He makes Chris comes to his teacher education
extensive use of these talents in the class- program with an education that has depth
room to make students listen and think. rather than breadth. He is knowledgeable
He misses the times when they had flexible within his areas of specialization in
scheduling and team teaching in the anthropology - human evolution and cul-
school. In those good old days in the sev- tural anthropology - but less so in history
enties they had more flexibility to select and geography, which are the two other
teaching methods that fit the topics. In the major content areas in the social studies
conventional situation of one room, one course he is teaching. Chris knows that
class, and one teacher, he feels limited in teaching social studies involves repre-
his scope to match topics and teaching senting the subject matter in a way that is
methods to his satisfaction. In that case, different from what he learned in college.
he has to come up with the second best He is struggling to learn this new way
method. For example, when teaching the of knowing in social studies - he is strug-
Age of Jackson, instead of an elaborate gling to develop pedagogical content
simulation where Jackson is impeached, knowledge.
Harry has the students publish a couple Chris knows that his content knowledge
of newspapers addressing the period and is not suitable for teaching high school

students. Early in the teacher education
program Chris encountered this problem
when he wanted to teach students about
human evolution.
What I have to work on is how to explain human
evolution because these are really difficult con-
cepts. I might do some reading to get some good
examples because the examples I know won't fit
in the class. The examples have to be appealing
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
and accessible. I don't think I'm going to come
in and talk about different explanations and
environmental influences. That would not go and
I have to redefine it somehow. That is what I
have to figure out - what are good examples.
[Interview 3.4; October 1984]
At this early stage in his teacher education
program, redefining the subject matter for
Chris is coming up with better examples,
which is not redefining. It seems that he
is searching his content knowledge for
examples that his knowledge of students
tells him will work with the class. One
year later Chris has come a long way,
because now he redefines the subject mat-
ter and comes up with the idea of a story as
a means of redefining the subject matter.
A good unit needs a story, or a theme. It could
have a hierarchy of themes, or some network of
themes, or webs, to get into Geertz's vocabulary.
A bad unit doesn't really have a story or some-
thing to draw it together and show why it is
important. The story, that is the gist - what it is
all about. [Interview 14.3; October 1985]
Chris is here talking about a story for one
unit. In his case, it was usually the unit
coming next. He was not able to come up
with a story for the whole course. He had
some ideas about the course being about
Man.
I'm going to ask three questions because I don't
like the way the required curriculum is set up.
Where does Man come from? What is Man like?
Where is Man going? [Interview 3.1; October
1984]
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 65
Chris is here realizing a potential in the
curriculum he is teaching, it is about Man.
He is not able to articulate it or realize
other potentials in the curriculum or the
advantages and disadvantages of his
approach, nor does he talk about critical
topics or content that students must
understand.
Chris is working on coming up with his
stories and he gets help from the teacher
education program. In one of his teacher
education classes, Chris came across Sch-
wab's (1961/1978) idea of the syntactical
and substantive structures of the disci-
plines. Schwab argues that there are to
be found basically two different types of
structures within disciplines. Substantive
structures are the different ways in which
scholars in the discipline determine truth
or falsehood, validity or invalidity of data
and propositions. The idea of substantive
structures made Chris think about cultural
anthropology and human evolution in
terms of different conceptions of anthro-
pology, and influenced the stories he came
up with for structuring into units.
Conceptions of the subject matter kind of per-
meate throughout the whole year. These ideas
influenced how I thought about organizing ideas
and where the main ideas came from and how
they related to one another. I was constantly
thinking of how do I think about the subject
matter. [Interview 13.16; June 1985]
Chris uses the substantive structures of
anthropology to come up with stories, and
he uses ideas from the curriculum class to
structure the stories into units to teach.
Consequently, when he teaches topics
that are outside anthropology, he cannot
turn to the discipline for stories. So, he
does not come up with one. In the non-
anthropology units, Chris lets the text-
book take over, or gets a good movie on
the topic. It is hard work turning a whole
course of study into cultural anthropology
 66 Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman

and human evolution, and Chris does not
have the time or energy to do so all the
time. He works hard at coming up with a
story in the units that have anthro-
pological elements. He works on one unit
at a time without forging explicit con-
nection from one unit to another or the
course as a whole.
If the substantive structures help Chris
come up with the stories, then the syn-
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
researchers. Learning anthropology, for
Chris, is doing anthropopology. But,
Chris has the students only doing anthro-
pology in the areas where he has expert
knowledge. Outside of that, it looks as if
he is not concerned with anthropological
or any other subject integrity. He is just
trying to stay out of trouble and to pro-
gress through the curriculum.
Chris's progress in coming up with,

tactical structures help him find effective structuring, and telling stories, or con-
ways of telling them. Chris tells the story structing his pedagogical content knowl-
of human evolution in a dramatic and edge, has been facilitated by his growing
effective way. He is teaching the students pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of
about the syntactical structures that students. He selectively draws on his
anthropologists studying human evolution teacher education classes to construct this
employ. pedagogical content knowledge. There is
evidence that he uses ideas from the
I have these skeletons from the anthro museum teacher education program about cur-
here. I have a chimp skull, then I have early riculum, teaching methods, theories of
Australopithecine and then homonoid skulls. I
brought them in and laid them out in a sequence learning, and sociology of knowledge. It
and did a lecture and showed the changes that looks as if Chris is building up his peda-
occurred. Some kids had never heard of evol- gogical content knowledge out of neces-
ution before and were really shocked seeing sity, for he soon found out that he could
those skulls in descending order so it looks like
evidence or proof. [Interview 7.4-7.5; January not use the pedagogical approach he was
1985] used to as a college student, the lecture
method. His students would not listen to
The ways of the anthropologist making a lecture for more than 5 minutes, so he
sense of data permeate all activities Chris had to figure out ways to get students
has the students engage in. He likes to give engaged in learning.
them materials that resemble the kinds
of experiences anthropologists have doing DISCUSSION
fieldwork. He shows them movies and
pictures of exotic cultures and has the Our expert and novice teachers have one
students reacting as anthropologists. important element in common: they both
have expert content knowledge in their
We showed them the movies and I got more into disciplines. There are, however, two
the idea of 'what is this telling you? Describe major differences related to their content
what happens during gard. Describe what hap-
pens during a Dani battle. Describe what they knowledge. First, Harry has developed a
are doing.' I have been asking a lot of descriptive clear point of view in US history. He sees
questions. [Interview 10.3; January 1985] the history of the United States as the
growth of opportunities for participation
Chris' emphasis on the ways of the anthro- in the democratic process. Chris is knowl-
pologist show that he is concerned with edgeable in two general areas of anthro-
anthropological integrity. He wants the pology: cultural anthropology and human
students to experience anthropology as evolution, but he does not have a clear

point of view. Having a point of view
probably plays a major role in trans-
forming content knowledge into peda-
gogical content knowledge.
Second, there is a difference in the
opportunities they have had to re-define
their content knowledge to construct
pedagogical content knowledge. Harry
has been teaching the subject he had a
master's in for thirty-seven years. Chris is
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
in his first year or teaching and he teaches
a course that covers more than anthro-
pology. While he realizes the need to
redefine the subject matter, he has not
had much opportunity to do so.
We will now explore some of the dif-
ferences between the expert and the nov-
ice in terms of the curriculum potential
they are able to realize, pros and cons of
each approach, ideas about segmenting
and structuring a course of study, critical
periods, and content integrity.
Harry and Chris differ in terms of the
potential they realize in the curriculum.
Harry has multiple large views on the way
in which US history can be organized and
segmented. There is his favorite story on
the growth of opportunity, also economic
growth, Black history, Supreme Court
cases, and so on. Harry not only knows
each story, he also knows which parts in
the story must be told if the story is going
to be understood by students. The Age of
Jackson is a period in US history that
the veteran teacher has come to view as
crucial for students' understanding of the
history of their country. In Harry's view,
this period exemplifies what US history is
all about and it is crucial for all the stories
on the United States of America.
While the expert has developed sophis-
tication in segmenting and structuring the
curriculum and knows the pros and cons
of each approach, the novice knows only
one way, the one he uses. Chris does not
even visualize the course of study as a
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 67
whole. He has some vague ideas that he
is going to deal with Man. Otherwise, he
does not work out the specifics for the
whole course. He can only visualize one
unit at a time since he only attempts to
come up with a story for one unit, usually
the one that comes next. He does not
always see the connections or devel-
opment from one unit to another. He
moves on to the next story with some
vague ideas about what carries over. He
is trying to work on these connections
since he sees the course to be about Man.
Research shows that student teachers
are concerned with many of the same
issues that Chris is: unit organization, seg-
mentation, and curriculum potential. J.
Shulman (1985) reports that the student
teacher she worked with was concerned
with one unit at a time. The student
teacher wanted to teach again a lesson
that did not go well. She worked on her
'story' and successfully taught the lesson
at a later time. J. Shulman (1985) quotes
Tabachinik & Zeichner (1984) in a sum-
mary of findings for research on student
teaching. They suggest that student teach-
ers learn short term coping techniques
that will get them through the next lesson,
or the next unit. It may well be that
students have to learn those short term
coping techniques before they can be
expected to come up with and implement
larger units like a course of study on the
history of the United States as told
through Black history. The short term
plan, perhaps, is all you can come up
with when there is no pedagogical content
knowledge.
This suggests that visualizing larger and
larger units in terms of curriculum is an
important element in a growing peda-
gogical content knowledge. Veteran
teachers can more easily make sense of
large units like a course of study. Novices,
on the other hand, think about one move
 68 Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman
at a time without trying to see relation-
ships to the larger whole. This observation
is supported by cognitive psychology
where an expert is defined as someone
who can form larger and more powerful
structures which organize smaller pieces
of information. A novice, on the other
hand, can only use smaller pieces of infor-
mation and is unable to employ these
larger and organized structures.
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
The student teachers whom Reichert,
Wilson & Marks (1986) studied were con-
cerned with segmenting and reconstruct-
ing the curriculum they were teaching.
They experimented with different ways of
segmenting and reconstructing ideas to
make a unit that would work in the
classroom.
Student teachers learn important
elements of pedagogical content knowl-
edge from practice. Reynolds, Haymore,
Ringstaff & Grossman (1986) observe that
student teachers learn new ways of organ-
izing content from the textbooks they use.
They suggest that in some cases realizing
a different organization of content, or cur-
riculum potential, may be the first real
leasson students have in curriculum
theory.
Chris's extensive use of movies and
other visual aids may be related to his
inability to come up with a story for the
units. He claims that these materials are
important in teaching anthropology since
they simulate to some extent the experi-
ence anthropologists have working in the
field. However, Chris uses movies in other
units that are not anthropology. There is
also a different explanation possible for
his extensive use of movies: Chris's lack
of stories for the units may be sup-
plemented by a good movie on the topic.
He then has a story, even though it is
not his story. He probably organizes the
curriculum in the areas he is not knowl-
edgeable around the movies available in
the school district. It is important to note
that during the 22 days that Harry was
observed, he never once showed a movie.
Not only is Harry able to realize a rich
potential in the history of the United
States, he is also fully aware of the pros
and cons of each story. For every story,
he knows what major ideas are left out
and what ideas are better explored. This
is not surprising since he has tried most of
these approaches in his thirty-seven years
of teaching. Chris, on the other hand,
does not go into these issues. He is just
struggling to come up with one good story.
Whatever story Harry is telling of the
history of the United States, he is con-
cerned with compromising historical
integrity. His pedagogical content knowl-
edge guides him on the thin line between
historical integrity and high school
history. Even though Chris does not talk
about anthropological integrity, he is
clearly concerned with giving students
experiences that resemble the work of
anthropologists by having them watch
movies of exotic cultures and play anthro-
pologists. His expert knowledge in
anthropology and research methods is a
solid base to build integrity on.
Harry does not worry about the stu-
dents not listening to his stories: students
love them. This is because of his superb
storytelling technique. The thirty-seven
years of teaching have also given him a
rich source of general pedagogical skill
and knowledge. Combined with his expert
content knowledge, this pedagogical
knowledge was used a long time ago to
construct pedagogical content knowledge
that enables him to have views on the best
method to teach each topic. According to
Harry, there are some topics that are best
taught by simulation, having students do
newspapers, lectures, or group work. This
is the kind of skill that only solid peda-
gogical content knowledge can produce.

While Harry tries to come up with the
best teaching strategy to do justice to a
topic, Chris tries to come up with a teach-
ing strategy that is going to keep students
involved and himself out of trouble. He
does not seem to worry about teaching
method doing justice to a topic, except he
frequently uses movies and other visual
aids as a way to get students to react like
anthropologists. An orderly classroom
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
with students captivated by a good movie
may well be a hidden motivation.
CONCLUSIONS
The most dramatic difference between the
novice and the expert is that the expert
has pedagogical content knowledge that
enables him to see the larger picture sev-
eral times, and he has the flexibility to
select a teaching method that does justice
to the topic. The novice, however, is get-
ting a good start in constructing peda-
gogical content knowledge, starting small
and hopefully progressing to seeing more
and larger possibilities in the curriculum,
both in terms of unit organization and
pedagogical flexibility.
The implication for teacher education
is that the focus should be on pedagogical
content knowledge. Presently, in most
teacher education programs students
learn primarily about the subject matter,
general teaching methods, psychology,
and sociology. There has been less empha-
sis on getting student teachers to think
about the subject matter they have to
teach in terms of their pedagogical
content. Student teachers need to be
aware of the process they have to under-
take to make their content knowledge
available for students. Courses in the
foundation of learning and curriculum
were Chris's key to beginning to redefine
his content knowledge and, therefore,
build pedagogical content knowledge.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 69
There is also an implication for in-
service education. Even though Chris has
graduated from his teacher education pro-
gram, he still has a great deal to learn.
The idea of Master teacher is important
here and could be the key to Chris's grow-
ing pedagogical content knowledge. He is
promising as a teacher, but needs help if
we are not going to lose him. What if
Harry was Chris's Master teacher? What
if the Master teacher focused on helping
the young teacher with curriculum issues
like structuring and segmenting the course
of study? The veteran teacher said that he
did not like teaching anthropology
because he did not know where the disci-
pline was going. Perhaps many young
teachers find the first years of teaching so
difficult because their teacher education
has not helped them think about the cur-
riculum in terms of the larger picture.
NOTES
1. This research is supported by a grant from
the Spencer Foundation to Stanford Uni-
versity for the Growth of Knowledge in
Teaching project. Prof. L.S. Shulman prin-
cipal investigator.
2. 'Chris' and 'Harry' are pseudonyns.
REFERENCES
Ben-Peretz, M. 1975. The concept of cur-
riculum potential. Curriculum Theory Net-
work, 5.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M. 1975. Federal
programs supporting educational change,
Vol. IV: The findings in review. Santa
Monica, California: Rand Corporation.
Grossman, P., Reynolds, A., Ringstaff, C. &
Sykes, G. 1985. English major to English
teacher: New approaches to an old problem.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Associ-
ation, San Francisco.
Gudmundsdottir, S. Knowledge use among
experienced teachers: Four case studies of
 70 Sigrun Gudmundsdottir & Lee Shulman
social studies. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Hasweh, M. 1985. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, School of Education, Stanford
University, California.
Richert, A., Wilson, S. & Marks, R. 1986.
Knowledge growth in teaching: Research
in progress on secondary school teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of
Downloaded by [Temple University Libraries] at 01:24 05 January 2015
the American Educational Research Associ-
ation, San Francisco.
Reynolds, A., Haymore, J., Ringstaff, C. &
Grossman, P. 1986. Subject matter knowl-
edge and curriculum materials: Which
influences which as secondary teachers begin
to teach? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
Shulman, J. 1986. From veteran parent to
novice teacher: A case study of a student
teacher. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Shulman, L. 1986. Those who understand:
Growth of knowledge in teaching. Edu-
cational Researcher 15, 4-14.
Schwab, J. 1961/1978. Education and the
structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury
& N. Wilkof (Eds). Science, Curriculum,
and Liberal Education. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.