Reinventing Social Studies: By All Means!

Abstract

WHEN I was asked to respond to Reinventing Social Studies, I began by considering many points Kevin St. Jarre raises about beginnings of social studies, place of history and other social science disciplines in social studies education, characterization of secondary social studies teaching, and how best to reinvent social studies and put subject area squarely on path of our students to live in a globalized world. While I initially selected my involvement in teacher education programs as primary lens for my analysis, on further reflection, I decided to take a wider view and include my many other experiences in education community. I want to use Mr. St. Jarre's commitment to secondary education and his passion for social studies as a springboard to elaborate on main issues he raises and to describe why reinventing social studies is no easy task. Thus it is unnecessary to devote much space to discussing role of history and other social science disciplines in development of a social studies curriculum. There is no question that in 1916 National Education Association (NEA) viewed history as discipline that should play major role in early development of a social studies curriculum. At turn of 20th century, history was well positioned in schools and universities, and, along with content from geography and political science, was viewed as core subject area in a social studies curriculum for K-12 schools. American historians believed in the value of historical knowledge to strengthen individual, sharpen mind, broaden horizon, and give depth to soul. (1) Social studies proponents also viewed history as providing framework (i.e., chronology) by which to examine events, issues, trends, and personalities in social science contexts. While other social scientists were forming separate organizations (e.g., American Anthropological Association, American Psychological Association) and accurately perceived advantages of playing a role in development of social studies curriculum, they were too inexperienced to counter influence of American Historical Association. As a result, well into late 1900s, social studies/history was one of core subject areas in K-12 curriculum, with few of social science organizations challenging its primacy. After reading Reinventing Social Studies, I believe Mr. St. Jarre and I agree on what is meant by social studies and its intended purpose in curriculum. The definition he quotes, adopted by NEA Committee on Social Studies in 1916, may seem vague--those [disciplines] whose subject matter relates directly to organization and development of human society, and to man as a member of social groups--but it is quite similar to one National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) developed and continues to use: the integrated study of social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. (2) In NCSS position statements on social studies education, promotion of civic competence refers to nurturing an awareness and understanding of students' immediate communities and many others to which they belong. What I find surprising is that Mr. St. Jarre makes no mention of NCSS, but his notions about creating competent citizens and preparing students to live in a globalized society seem to echo organization's definition and stated purpose for social studies education. However, unlike Mr. St. Jarre, I do not see history as merely a record, not an analysis. In House of War, James Carroll eloquently describes what history means to historians: [it] is not a catalogue of events, not just a knowledge of their chronology .... History is, rather, appreciation of how events relate to each other, if not causally, then mythically. Objectively but also personally .... Our concern is not only with what happened but how it felt, and how it set other things moving in public realm and in human heart. …