2007 Social Studies Curriculum

(Released to the web November 15, 2007)

Every year it gets more difficult to innovate and to reach for an authentically higher standard in public education because of the reach of both federal and state government standards.  Since government bureaucrats and politicians are often more concerned with the lowest common denominator than with opportunities to excel, all schools get pegged to the minimum instead of being encouraged to be all they can be.  While the current New Jersey social studies curriculum standards may be an improvement over the previous model, there is still plenty lacking.  The trick for a district like Readington is to meet the state standards while offering a superior vision that goes beyond what is required.  How have we done in the 2007 draft of our social studies curriculum?

A curriculum is a map and a guide for a particular subject, it does not necessarily specify classroom lessons or student work but, rather, suggests the broad themes and goals for certain timeframes.  Many other factors, including adherence to the guidelines, teacher expertise, time on subject, availability of resources and more determine how well it works.  For example, some students will benefit more than others from stronger teachers or from more support at home, even under the same curriculum structure.

Perhaps we should start at the end and work our way back, then. In our K-8 district the concerns and criticisms regarding social studies have been fairly uniform.  From school board members, to educators, to parents, the people worried about this subject area have voiced very similar objections.  First, there is agreement that we are graduating too many students who lack a firm grasp of what used to be termed "civics."  Students do not have a strong handle on the mechanics of local, state or even federal government, on the ways and means of participating in political processes, on the responsibilities and possibilities of citizenship, or on distribution of power in our republic.  Second, there is at least partial agreement that students are lacking a true understanding of how democracy, capitalist economics, and the rule of law intersect in American government.  Third, there is broad agreement that our students lack a fundamental understanding of the chronology of historical events and, in particular, how the Western tradition from Greece on up led to American values and how this contrasts with other traditions.

These three concerns or criticisms cannot be entirely pinned on the curriculum--after all, a theoretically perfect curriculum could be sabotaged by poor teaching or lesson planning, by a lack of time to complete the vision, by a lack of resources and much more.  Yet,  the curriculum certainly must start students and educators off in the right direction.

The 2007 social studies curriculum draft in Readington is not a revolutionary document.  With frequent references to the New Jersey Core Curriculum standards,  the Readington document plays it safe and offers a milquetoast version of social studies themes and skills which do little to inspire.  The Kindergarten through second grade areas are concerned largely with families, culture and community.  In third grade, there is emphasis on New Jersey, colonial people and Lenni Lenape people.  Fourth grade moves to geography, regional concerns and national government.  In fifth grade European exploration and revolution are stressed.  In sixth grade there is study of ancient civilizations and in seventh grade the study of Greece, the enlightenment and Western culture.  The Eighth grade section is concerned with American history up to the Civil War, Westward expansion and slavery.  Local and state government, for instance, is covered in third grade, but also touched on again in eighth grade.  Educators call this "spiraling" and the supposed intent is to revisit subject areas and reinforce learning.  Critics say it is just confusing and results in a disjointed presentation.

While some of this curriculum is necessarily tied to New jersey standards, there is certainly room for innovation and refinement within that mandate.  Even a quick read through the 2007 curriculum draft document reveals an oddness in developmental timing and historical chronology.  Chip Wood's widely respected book Yardsticks lays out developmental timeframes in an easy to understand format.  He recommends that K-4 students in social studies progress from families, to jobs and culture, to neighborhoods, to institutions, to diversity and beginning history, to a history of cultures in order to tie in with developmental milestones in this age group.  In Readington we are pushing branches of local government on third graders and geography and regions on fourth graders.  Far from offering an aggressive push for advanced study, it is likely that most of these students simply don't have the developmental capacity or the perspective to grasp the subject.  Indeed, there is evidence that teachers understand this fact and buffer their students from subject matter that is simply over their heads.

Just as odd is the disjointed chronology.  In third grade New Jersey government is studied before students have been introduced to any historical perspective on democracy or other forms of government.  European exploration is studied in fifth grade before Greek and enlightenment periods in seventh grade.  Ancient Mayan and Aztec civilizations are studied in sixth grade, along with Asian and African regions, before the more familiar Western civilization in seventh grade.  It is a small wonder that students graduate with little grasp of the chronological significance of history.  Even leaving aside the specifics of each curriculum area, one wonders if it wouldn't make more sense in both developmental and chronological terms to move from families, communities and cultures, to American states and regions, to ancient Greece and Rome, to the middle ages and the enlightenment, to European exploration and the American founding, and finally to American and other governments while contrasting to other traditions.   With a base of knowledge, perspective, and a matured level of development, students are in a better position to understand their place in history and the way in which societies and cultures have grown and adapted over time.

There is much completely missing in this curriculum, too.  A strong emphasis on what used to be termed "civics" just doesn't exist.  While third and eighth graders are shown the basics of the branches of government and how to participate in the political process, there is no big push for a working knowledge of participatory citizenship.  Why does one register to vote, how does one decide what to vote, and why does one choose to run for an elected office?  What levers of power, inside and outside of government, are available to citizens concerned about a particular subject and how are those levers best used? Similarly, there is not a push for a deeper understanding of American principles. In Alan Greenspan's recent book The Age Of Turbulence,  he notes that property rights, the rule of law and the allowance for the "creative destruction" of capitalism are behind the growth of nations as much or more than democratic ideals.  Nowhere in this curriculum is this nature of the American experiment explored.  Indeed, where specific individual contributions are mentioned in the document, Sacajawea and Cesar Chavez are noted but John Locke and Adam Smith are ignored.  Each made a difference, but with limited time for social studies teaching is John Locke worth ignoring in favor of Cesar Chavez?  Is this political correctness run amok? For that matter, the 2007 Readington social studies curriculum draft insists on perpetuating simplistic historical myths which have long been discredited, including Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher and Betsy Ross.

The 2007 draft is a mediocre attempt to align Readington social studies teaching with state mandates without rocking the boat.  Far from visionary, it merely tinkers with previous practice, persists in the absence of a meaningful, coordinated thread of civics, continues to offer a disjointed chronological timeline, and fails to connect modern day America with the roots of Western thought, tradition and law.  The fault may lie not with the writers of the curriculum draft, but with an administration and school board which has not set as a priority a social studies draft with excellence in mind.  Certainly we have employed in the district educators with the capability to fix this draft.  However, without the direction and the time made a priority from above, these educators must continue to do what they have done before--buffer the students in their classrooms and their schools from a poorly conceived curriculum with quiet adjustments.  We can and should do better than this draft, and the school board should make that clear to the administration.  Just because the state standards are stagnating doesn't mean that Readington must join in the muck.