Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 1

Reform Movement.

Fewer, Higher, Clearer:

Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education Reform Movement.
Taylor Smith
University of Kansas
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 2
Reform Movement.

When the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) began designing a framework,

they believed that No Child Left Behind, and the lack of interdisciplinary coherence among those

involved in designing national social studies standards created a dark cast where even

considering its development was risky at best. With the onset of the Common Core State

Standards (CCSS), the Council knew that fight the risk of being shut out, they needed a plan to

elevate the importance of social studies. This concern acknowledged the discussion of history

within the English Language Arts (ELA) standards in grades 6-12. However, when statewide

budget cuts remain on the rise, leaders in the subject area came together with a concern that it

was time to embark on a journey where stakeholders develop a set of a pedagogical process for

teaching social studies. Therefore, the College, Career, and Civil Life (C3) Framework acts more

like a guide for developing state standards, as well as classroom instructional practices (Swan, K.

and Griffin, S., 2013).

Ultimately, the stakeholders in social studies education are working to join the circle

within the Standards Based Education Reform (SBER) movement that it was left out of, and they

must continue defending. But, is a suggested framework and state content standards sufficient for

the survival of a field imperative for a successful Democracy? The concern is not necessarily the

state standards, CCSS, or the C3 Framework themselves, but the process by which to mend these

standards, as well as the types of assessment needed. In order for social studies to become

elevated, teacher-led curriculum development to ensure clarity in sequence, as well as shifts in

assessment are needed in order to effectively embed the discipline-specific literacy practices and

content. Conversations that occur at state and local levels must discuss the distinct nature of the

disciplinary practices and understandings in social studies, while recognizing their

interdisciplinary applicability.
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 3
Reform Movement.

The Need for Collaboration when Developing Local Curricula

According to researchers Robert J. Marzano and Mike Schmoker curricular standards are

necessary for high-quality education. Their various studies emphasized the need for purposeful,

clear, and manageable standards, not more. Many documents at the state level were so dense that

they would require a 10-hour teaching day to accomplish all of the material in them; thus lacking

docile standards with clear language for teachers, parents and students (Schmoker, M. and

Marzano, R., 1999). With this, while developing the History, Government, and Social Studies

(HGSS) standards for the state of Kansas, some feared that a reduction of content drifted away

from providing students with the necessary understandings of knowing us as Americans.

However, the committee decided that the purpose of these standards served to narrow down the

scope, while driving quality instruction and assessment through the use of big ideas, inquiry, and

discipline-specific literacy to meet the shift in demands from CCSS (Wiebe, 2011). Developing a

curriculum that is diligently aligned to a specific set of standards at each grade level requires a

decrease in the breadth of content, while providing opportunities for teachers to collaborate while

developing district-wide curriculum, common grade-level assessment, and the scope and

sequence (Schmoker, M. and Marzano. R, 1999). With the interpretative nature of the subject

area, however, difficulty ensues with developing local curricula, even with fewer standards.

Although intended as a guide rather than a set of mandates, the Kansas HGSS standards are more

of a list of suggested content and skills, absent of an incorporation of where the content and skills

meet. When there is a lack of indication of how to mend the ELA literacy skill sets, as well as the

content and disciplinary practices associated with leading students towards doing history, the

implicit notion of referring to the skills associated with CCSS proves insufficient (KSDE, 2013).
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 4
Reform Movement.

For the purpose of examining the validity and feasibility of moving from standards that

focus more on critical thinking and inquiry, an exploration of how one district is adapting to the

Kansas HGSS standards is necessary. With this, the curriculum maps that address the U.S.

history standards in grades five, eight, and eleven (as these are the grades specified for teaching

U.S. history) are closely analyzed for the purpose of demonstrating how the students in this

district are doing history (KSDE, 2013). To provide context for the curriculum maps, each of

the authors hold different pre-service educational training, as one teacher specializes in

elementary education, whereas the 8th grade and 11th grade teachers are certified specifically in

secondary history, government, and social studies education. Furthermore, each teacher

individually developed the scope and sequence of their course only with their classroom in mind,

thus lacking collaboration; thus, discrepancy between the assessed historical thinking skills,

themes, and discipline-specific practiceor lack-there-ofat each grade level persists (Shawnee

Heights School District, 2013; Shawnee Heights Middle School, 2013; Shawnee Heights High

School, 2013).

In comparison, each map follows more of a linear cause and effect narrative model

approach to U.S. History. Although these particular maps do not provide an authentic lens into

classroom practice, they are a good indication that there is still an affirming of dates, facts, and

names. Other than the provided essential questions, the assessments and instructional materials

lack adaptation of an inquiry-based model or elements of discipline-specific literacy practices.

There is evidence of teaching historical thinking skillsincluding contextualizing,

corroboration, and source in the 8th grade, however the document lacks discussion of

practicality. As for the 5th and 11th grades, there is no mention of how to incorporate primary

and secondary sources, and the 11th grade assessments simply use them for the purpose of
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 5
Reform Movement.

reiterating a particular narrative persists (Shawnee Heights School District, 2013; Shawnee

Heights Middle School, 2013; Shawnee Heights High School, 2013).

The lack of direction in the Kansas HGSS document on how to implement these skills,

coupled with a lack of consensus between grade levels about what students are to learn and do in

U.S. History is a plausible reason for the present sequencing between the grade-levels. For

example, the Kansas HGSS standards indicate that students are to analyze and interpret a

variety of primary sources; however, there is no suggestions made about which sources to

choose. A teacher may find the mention of the Bill of Rights in both the 5th an 8th grade, but this

document is listed as an event (5th grade) or an idea (8th grade). That being said, without a

discussion of how to incorporate primary source documents, and how to convey their context,

purpose, and meaning, the Kansas History standards offer an inadequate vision for schools on

how to sequence the skills and content across grade-levels. Thus, necessitating the need teacher-

led curriculum development where conversations are made about what to teach and assess at

each distinct grade-level (KSDE, 2013; Schmoker, M. and Marzano, R. 1999). Meetings between

classroom must lend significant time to considering thematic approaches, how to incorporate

multiple perspectives, and how to create a system where students continuously building upon

their understanding of historical thinking, as well.

With this, an 8th grade U.S. history course that closely follows the scope of content, the

department may decide to design a course that embeds multiple perspectives by having students

consistently analyze various peoples interpretation of freedom in America. This may ultimately

drive students towards synthesizing how the meaning of freedom as an American idea is

consistent throughout time, yet fluid in its meaning between periods, as well as different groups

of people. Drawing upon some notable people/roles mentioned within the Kansas History
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 6
Reform Movement.

standards, the unit Regionalism and Expansion: 1800s-1850, two of the individuals

mentionedFrederick Douglass and Elizabeth Cady Stantonoffer dynamic perspectives on the

meaning of freedom during a period it was heavily debated. From the point of view of Elizabeth

Cady Stanton, one may find that the use of the Declaration of Sentiments (1848) indicatively

illustrates the feminist thought during the mid-nineteenth century. However, in order to fully

understand its significance and the rhetoric, students must possess significant schema about the

Declaration of Independence, and why feminists during this time are drawing upon the

irrefutable necessity of ridding women of their second-class citizenship. Likewise, Frederick

Douglass What to the Slave is the Fourth of July (1852) alludes to meanings derived form the

Declaration of Independence to draw the dichotomy between slavery and freedom (Foner, 1998;

KSDE, 2013; Kansas Assessment Program, n.d). Both documents, however, are not appropriately

understood without an analysis of their meanings within the context of the time, as well as the

perspective of the author. In order to establish a sound understanding of perspectives on freedom,

the ideas continuity and change, and how to use assigned primary source documents historical

context, teachers must begin collaboratively sequencing in order for students to synthesize the

content across grade-levels.

Given the nature of the Kansas HGSS, developing curriculum, assessments, and

instructional materials that closely aligned, requires a deep understanding of historical thinking

skills and the process of inquiry-based learning. For example, the standards indicate that teachers

must design instructional materials that require the use of primary sources, literacy within the

social studies, and authentic intellectual work that incorporates higher order thinking skills.

Furthermorein conjunction with the grade-level Kansas College and Career Readiness

Standards for English, Language Arts (formally known as the Common Core)teachers are
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 7
Reform Movement.

required to assess students ability to source, contextualize, and corroborate primary source

documents. There is little direction on how to assess, let alone teach, these particular skills. That

being said, if a teacher does not possess a deep understanding of the habits of mind for doing

history, districts will need to designate more time and money to build knowledge, update

practices, gather resources, and plan assessments (KSDE, 2013; Herczog, 2014).

Hereby pressing is the use of the inquiry-based learning process adapted by C3

Framework. Because the C3 Framework was developed by the NCSS after the adoption of the

Kansas HGSS standards, there is no guideline within the state standards of how to work through

the Inquiry Arc, and the elements of the four dimensionspreparing for inquiry, disciplinary

practices, evaluating evidence, and communicating understanding and taking actionwithin the

elementary or secondary classrooms (Wiebe, 2012). However, when looking at Dimension 2, the

disciplinary tools and grade-level expectations are thoroughly explained within the document.

For example, regarding the use of historical evidence, students in the 5th grade are to summarize

how different kinds of historical sources are used to explain events in the past, while 8th grade

grows more complex by requiring students to classify historical sources, in hopes of moving

students towards analyzing the relationship between historical sources by the end of 12th grade.

Therefore, if provided adequate time, the C3 Framework lends an opportunity for mending the

content and literacy standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013).

However, some have expressed fear that the C3 Framework as they believe that NCSS

should challenge the Common Core, rather than joining in (Singer, 2015). To counter this, John

Lee and Kathy Sawn do not believe the CCSS are not necessarily bad for social studies; rather

the CCSS are limited in defining the role of ELA within the social studies disciplines. The CCSS

add a complexity to developing curriculum that encompasses both skills that are necessary for
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 8
Reform Movement.

being a literate human being, as well as the need for civic understanding and efficacy within a

dynamic and democratic society (Lee and Swan, 2013). Therefore, the strength of the C3

Framework is that it builds on the incomplete nature of the CCSS by providing a means of how

to teach literacy within the specific social studies disciplines. The Common Core may express

that John Adams Letter on Thomas Jefferson, as well as The Declaration of Independence

appropriately within the context of an English Language Arts classroom, however, teaching these

complex texts, and the historical context in which they emerged, is most appropriate within the

discipline of history, as a history teacher is best equipped to help students interact with text and

develop meaning in those content areas (Lee and Sawn, 2013; CCSS, 2012). In order to

effectively implement these texts, however, as well as the coinciding thinking processes,

classroom teachers will need adequate training, resources, and time to develop instructional

practices and authentic assessments that are aligned to the inquiry process (Herczog, 2014; Swan

and Lee, 2013; NCSS, 2014).

Shifts in Assessment Practices

Along with the development of local curricula, the shift in teaching practices in the social

studies disciplinesincluding the emphasis of discipline-specific literacyis highly apparent in

the need to develop more authentic assessments (Wiebe, 2012). Social Studies teachers must

lead the way in developing more rigorous and authentic assessments that align with their

disciplinesthe rote memorization of dates, facts, and names is insufficient (Swan and Griffin,

2013). With the Multidisciplinary Performance Task (MDPT), Kansas developed an authentic

assessment; however, its measures, once again, marginalize the thinking processes unique to the

social studies disciplines by measuring student thinking in terms of how well a student

demonstrates their ability to work through the writing processa process more distinct for ELA.
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 9
Reform Movement.

For example, the grades 6-8 argumentative rubric assesses students on four criteria that include

the clarity of the argument, use of evidence, the consistency and strength of the argument, and

the overall conventions. From this it is evident that students are not being assessed on how well

they can contextualize a primary source document, source the information, or even their

understanding of multiple perspectives or agency (Career, Standards, and Assessment Services,

2014).

Assessments like the MDPT further demonstrate that social studies teacher must

aggressively advocate for instructional practices and assessments that best measure a students

ability to think critically within the diverse disciplines. Social studies teachers do, indeed, share

the responsibility of promoting literacy skills, but it is imperative to recognize the influential

practices within social studies that are necessary for sustaining an effective democracy (Swan

and Griffin, 2013). Importance lies in providing students classroom-based opportunities to

express their understanding about how to investigate, build knowledge, and communicate their

findings within the context of the social studies disciplines. According to Bruce VanSledright,

state standards, as well as assessments, must focus on rich essential questions that reduce the

breadth of content taught (VanSledright, 2013). The Kansas HGSS standards do just that, as there

is a set of essentialidentified as compellingfor each unit of study in each grade level. Where

Kansas falls short, however, is with the measurements used by the MDPT. Furthermore, these

state-level assessments do not drive the teaching of social studies in a formative sense; rather

they serve the purpose of comparing how well students write across the state. This is a potential

indication of the drive for teacher accountability at both the state and national level, but it does

not solve the issue of the marginalization of social studies.

Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 10
Reform Movement.

To address this issue, the design of authentic assessments must measure more than what

students comprehend by focusing on cognition, the observation of learning in action, and the

development of interpretative rubrics. Most importantly, the developed rubrics must be linked to

the thinking processes that teachers indicate that students must demonstrate, and teachers must

apply them consistently across their designated grade-levels (VanSledright, 2013). To assist the

shift, Sam Wineburg and the Stanford History Education Group developed examples of these

types of authentic assessments with their program Beyond the Bubble. These assessments allow

students to examine primary and secondary sources through contextualizing, corroborating, and

sourcing information, while drawing evidence-based claims. Their authentic assessments, which

are aligned to specific CCSS anchor standards, allow teachers to monitor student progress with

historical thinking by providing a balance between multiple-choice questions and the daunting

format of the Document Based Question. While providing sample rubrics, and questions that

require short-constructed responses, these assessments are an excellent example of how teachers

may begin adapting to the instructional shifts required by CCSS and the C3 Framework

(Breakstone, Smith, and Wineburg, 2013).

The adjustment of assessments will require teachers to have access to technology, as well

as a great deal of time to collaboratively develop sound practices that place student-learning first.

This was a major concern with the adoption of CCSS as some districts were making heavy cuts

to the arts in order to purchase the necessary resources to run online tests, and access digital

means of acquiring information and communication. This required that districts dish out

millions, if not billions of dollars in technological hardware, materials, the restructure of

buildings, and more bandwidth (Strauss, 2014). Although Kansas has designed tools for the

social studies assessment by creating a database of primary source documents, more must be
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 11
Reform Movement.

done to ensure that teachers are adequately trained and prepared to implement historical thinking

skills and inquiry-based instructional practices. For many teachers, this is a complete shift in how

they teach, and the process requires significant support from building and district leaders

(Herczog, 2014).

Conclusion

As a continuation of the SBER movement, the development of CCSS ignites anxiety, yet

perseverance amongst advocates for social studies education. The marginalization of social

studies with No Child Left Behind, and the focus on literacy in all subject areas with CCSS has

many asking, where does literacy fit within social studies? With the development of the C3

Framework, and the revolution of the HGSS standards developed by KSDE, the tide of how we

teach subjects like history is changing from the memorization of stuff to the disciplinary

practices that are unique in the process of learning from the past. However, a framework and

standardsalthough more manageableare not enough.

These practices are a shift for many, and some districts may find it difficult to allocate the

time needed to develop a scope and sequence within areas of study that spans across grade-

levels. Districts must allocate more time to bringing social studies teachers into the conversation

about authentic classroom-based assessments, as well as how they will measure student progress.

Without assessments at the center, the inquiry-based instructional model, as well as the

standards, will fail sufficient execution. Adjusting instructional practices is a daunting and

expensive process, but social studies teachers must find the gusto that propelled them into this

field of study in order to bring its disciplines into the circle.

Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 12
Reform Movement.

Works Cited

Career, Standards, and Assessment Services (2014). State of Kansas Multidisciplinary

Performance Task-Grades 6-8 Argument. Kansas State Department of Education.
Common Core State Standards Initiative(2010). Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical
Subjects.http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/standard-10-range-quality-
complexity/texts-illustrating-the-complexity-quality-range-of-student-reading-6-12/.
Hancock, P. (2013). Kansas State Board of Education to Review new Social Studies
Standards. Lawrence Journal World, March 11, 2013.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/mar/11/state-board-education-review-new-soci
al-studies-st/
Hercog, M (2014). Implementing the C3 Framework: Monitoring the Instructional Shifts. Social
Education I78 (4), pp 165-169. National Council for the Social Studies.
2014.
Herczog, M. (2013). The Links between the C3 Framework and the NCSS National Curriculum
Standards for Social Studies. Social Education 77(6), pp.331-333. National Council for
the Social Studies, 2013.
Kansas Assessment Program. History Government and Social Studies.
http://ksassessments.org/formative_ss
Kansas State Department of Education.(2013). Kansas Standards for History, Government, and
Social Studies.
http://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/CSAS/Content%20Area%20(FL)/History,%20Governmen
t%20and%20Social%20Studies/2013%20Kansas%20History%20Government%20Social
%20Studies%20Standards.pdf
Lee, J. and Swan, K. (2013). Is the Common Core Good for Social Studies? Yes, but
Social Education 77(6), pp.327-330. National Council for the Social Studies, 2013.
NCSS (2013). College, Carreer, & Civic Life (C3) Framew0rk for Social Studies State
Standards. National Council for the Social Studies: Silver Spring, MD.
NCSS (2014). The C3 Framework: One Year Later. Social Education 78 (4), pp 172-174, 178.
National Council for the Social Studies, 2014.
Schmoker, M. and Marzano, R. (1999). Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education.
Educational Leadership 56 (6). pp. 17-21.
Shawnee Heights School District (2013). Curriculum Mapg: Grade 5. Shawnee Heights School
District: Tecumseh, KS.
Shawnee Heights Middle School (2013). Curriculum Map: Grade 8. Shawnee Heights School
District: Tecumseh, KS.
Shawnee Heights High School (2013). Curriculum Map: Grade 11. Shawnee Heights School \
District: Tecumseh, KS.
Singer, Alan (2015). How NCSS Sold Out History and the Social Studies.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157845
Fewer, Higher, Clearer: Elevating Social Studies within the Standards Based Education 13
Reform Movement.

Strauss, V. (2014). Everything you need to know about Common Core--Ravitch. The
WashingtonPost.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer
sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-cmmon-core-ravitch/.
Stanford History Education Group. Adapting Documents for the Classroom:
Equity and Access. National History Education Clearinghouse.
http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/23560
Swan, K. and Griffin, S. (2013). Beating the Odds: The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3)
Framework for Social Studies. Social Education 77(6), pp.317-321. National Council for
the Social Studies, 2013.
VanSledright, B. (2013). Can Assessment Improve Learning? Thoughts on the C3 Framework.
Social Education 77(6), pp.334-338. National Council for the Social Studies, 2013.
Vinson, K., Ross, E., and Wilson, M. (2011). In William Benedict Russell III Contemporary
SocialStudies: An Essential Reader, pp. 153-172. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing,2011.
Wiebe, G (2011). New Kansas State Social Studies Standards.
History Tech: History, technology, and probably some other stuff.
https://historytech.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/new-kansas-state-social-studies-standards/
Wiebe, G (2012). Kansas State Standards Update and the CCLFISSSS.
History Tech: History, technology, and probably some other stuff.
https://historytech.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/kansas-state-standards-update-and-the-
ccclfissss/