Evans, R. W. (2004). Social Studies Wars: What Should We Teach the Children? Reviewed by Reese H. Todd, Texas Tech University

Evans, R. W. (2004). Social Studies Wars: What Should We Teach the Children? New York: Teachers College Press. Pp. 226 $24.95 (Paperback)   ISBN 0-8077-4419-0 Reviewed by Reese H. Todd Texas Tech University December 5, 2005 Reports in the media show that U. S. high school students cannot name the first president of the United States, locate Viet Nam, or differentiate between terms such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and citizenship. Social studies teachers are the first line of attack for not adequately educating our children. Yet, decisions of what to teach our children under the umbrella of social studies education often shifts and is dependent on the influence of political and social interest groups. The review identifies Ron Evans’ position on the question of what to teach in social studies and considers the implications for current practice. It begins by tracing Evan’s work and contributions to the field. The chapter summaries that follow describe the ideological conflicts among various camps in the context of different historical eras. The reviewer then gives a brief definition of each camp and discusses the role of the work in relation to future social studies education projects. Ronald W. Evans, author of the Social Studies Wars, is a long-time social studies educator and spokesman for issues-centered instruction. His early work focused on teacher and student conceptions of history. He then turned his efforts toward investigating the development of social studies curriculum and raising questions about including social issues. Evans often found himself in the midst of controversy and responded to opposing voices in his publications. With colleagues, he edited the Handbook on Teaching Social Issues(NCSS, 1996) and continues research on the challenges teachers face in engaging students in critical thinking about current issues. Social Studies Wars describes the philosophical positions he has identified in his research and the influences they had in determining what we teach the children. Evans uses the structure of the book to show the development of social studies both historically and pedagogically. He begins with historians, a group he associates with traditional education and moves toward the more liberal, visionary social change proponents. The chapters detail the changes in curriculum materials with the fluctuation of the influence of each group. Evans identifies major world events, such as the Great Depression, World War II, and Sputnik that contribute to the political climate supporting the different camps. The emergence of power within different camps follows eras in the history of the United States, so I have divided the review of the chapters into three parts. Chapters 1, 2, and 3 recall the development of social studies education in the 19th and the early 20th century. Chapters 4 and 5 follow the development of social studies through the war years and cold war, and chapters 6 and 7 investigate the changes from the 1960s to the present. In each of these time periods other voices exist. The tensions and compromises are continually interwoven into the decision-making processes that effect American schools. Chapter Summaries Early chapters. In Chapter 1 Evans reviewed the historical roots from which social studies emerged. The array of courses students were expected to master had grown out of control. A hodgepodge of courses in the mid 1800s included twenty-two fields of history, eleven of geography, six of civics, and an array of philosophy and religious education courses (quoting Roorback 1937 in Evans p. 5). By the beginning of the twentieth century, curriculum committees of the American Historical Association recommended a chronological sequence of courses in secondary schools to bring order to the chaos. With a strong rationale for the value of history instruction, the association established for itself a position of influence in future decision-making processes. Changes in elementary school organization followed (1909) with further emphasis on the traditional history in opposition to a curriculum centered in the child and his environment. The dominance of history in the social studies and the goals of “transmitting culture, patriotism, and good citizenship” (p. 5) lasted into the first two decades of the twentieth century and furthered the political agenda of “conservative nation –building” (p. 19). Chapter 2 focused on the beginning of the Social Studies as a field of study. The National Educational Association (NEA) report of the social studies committee (1916) proposed “a new synthesis of social studies subjects”. Debates continued over questions of making schools more efficient for disseminating content knowledge through traditional history or a more functional, “social efficiency” history preparing students for working and maintaining the social conventions. Historians maintained a position of primacy, but others proposed courses of community civics or problems of democracy with a vision of integrated issues-centered study. The alternatives were closely linked to the progressive movement and were clearly not part of mainstream curriculum; at least no reference to the proposed Problems of Democracy was reported in the history journal for six years. By the mid 1920s organizations representing secondary principals and political science educators joined the various camps. These included the issues of content centered on history or in social sciences, the issue of knowledge acquisition versus the student interest, and the issue of the integration of courses across disciplinary boundaries. Evans notes that several strands of the progressive education movement “emerged from a general culture of protest”. The NCSS (1921) identified itself as a “consensus organization” (p. 37) with proposed curriculum plans directed toward “raising questions and investigating issues” (p. 44). The third chapter shifted to the era of hard times and turmoil of the 1930s. During the depression years the economic crises in the democracy affected all aspects of the social fabric of the nation, including education. Each of the major camps was present “in this struggle to determine the direction of social studies” (p. 47). Attention to the social problems of the Great Depression strengthened the social change and issues-oriented camps. Progressive education gained influence in the social and political climate. A research project of the Progressive Education Association translated an experimentalist attitude of practice into integrated curricula “centered around issues, social problems, and students’ personal problems” (p. 49). The reconstructionist camp found additional support for social change within the social and political climate of the period. The conflicts continued with Charles A. Beard advocating a disciplines-based curriculum for the social studies while Harold Rugg’s books were “built around an issues-centered vision” (p. 60). Critics from the history camp feared a lack of traditional teaching was undermining American patriotism. Issues of academic freedom arose when educators voiced dissenting views. This era of social change soon encountered the challenge of a new force. Middle Chapters. In Chapter 4 the rumblings of war again changed the social and political landscape for social studies education. A return to a safe, traditional history curriculum supported the development of patriotic values in classrooms. Instead of pursuing an uncertain path into social issues and the questions students might raise, the nation needed to encourage loyalty and unity. The wartime commitment toward making the world safe for democracy extended from the battlefield into social and political policies at home. The task of education was to socialize students into this climate. The impact on curriculum was both “immediate and long lasting . . . leading to the long term death of progressive education as an organized force” (p. 70). Critics said a problems approach raising questions about the ideals of democracy and capitalism was inappropriate in a time of war. Some cited lack of history being taught in schools as an attack on patriotism and conflicts between historians and social studies educators burned in the media and in professional journals. Headlines in the New York Times (1943) read, “Ignorance of U.S. History shown by college freshmen” (p. 89). The fifth chapter looked at the prosperity of the post war years along with growing fears of the Cold War conflicts. The battlefield had been relocated from military campaigns to ideological struggles between communism and capitalism. Competition between the Soviet Union and the United States set a “tone of confrontation, secrecy, and self-righteousness” along with an atmosphere of “restraint, and censorship” (p. 97). Amid the attacks on diversity and individual expression, NCSS published kits to help teachers respond to critics. They were too little and too late to turn back the tide against any kind of progressive, reflective, or issues-centered social studies education. In the fervor to counter communism, Evans says, illustrated the potential dangers to free expression and free thought, “creating a one-dimensional curriculum” (p. 97). Another threat to diversity at this time was Life Adjustment Education, an official program of the U.S. Office of Education. Teaching students to adjust to social norms replaced efforts to promote high academic achievement among all students. Many students who were trained for work in the society were left with inadequate education and unequal opportunities for success in the American system. Critical thinking and issues-centered curriculum continued to lose support. Classroom teaching returned to the traditional disciplines and history. Later Chapters. Chapter 6 chronicled the “most innovative and influential commodities ever produced for use in the social studies classrooms” (p. 127) during the 1960s and 1970s. With federal funding available for curriculum development in the aftermath of the cold war and Sputnik, issues-oriented curriculum and problem solving projects challenged high achieving learners. Analysis, critical thinking skills, and the investigation of people, places, and events characterized social studies education. The new, and newer, social studies curricula responded to civil rights issues within the society and the newly emerging voices of multicultural education. It was an era of broad influence for progressive education. The last chapter is entitled the “Runaway Train of Standards Reform”. In it Evans questions the manufactured crisis in education that led to reports of a nation at risk and re-established a conservative, traditionalist philosophy of social studies. The social studies pendulum swung toward content mastery and away from issues of society. The content favored traditional Euro-centric perspectives and factual knowledge that could be easily assessed with new standards and tests. Proponents of this camp found support from the political right and its leadership, including foundations that supplied funding for projects. Public education suffered from negative image, inadequate resources, low enrollment, and lack of trust. A new era of conformity ignored the increasing numbers of students whose history was not included in euro-centric curriculum. Addressing the social issues in the society remained outside the classroom. Evans summarized his work with this statement, “The key question haunting social studies remains the issues of its definition and its vision and of the approaches to the field that will be practiced in the schools” (p. 178). Participants in the Struggles Indeed, the current struggle for inclusion of social studies instruction in public schools reaches beyond the classroom teacher and curriculum requirements of local districts. It begins with a definition which is “vague, murky, and too all-inclusive” (Keller, 1961 quoted in Evans p. 125) and fails to arrive at a common vision. The vision is fragmented by five philosophical camps — traditional historians, social scientists, social efficiency educators, social meliorists, and social reconstructionists — that vie for control of what should be practiced in the schools. Additionally, the adoption of national standards and rigorous testing assessments value particular perspectives and curriculum materials. The struggle among interest groups, according to Evans, has escalated from “battles over the purposes, content, methods, and theoretical foundations of the social studies curriculum” (p. 1) into war against progressive education. The five philosophical camps, plus a sixth group promoting social studies as an “umbrella” organization, have emerged since the National Council of Social Studies (NCSS) organized in 1916. Each has had some effect on social studies education. 1) Traditional Historians: This group holds the strongest and most consistent influence in social studies curriculum. They maintain that the study of history transmits to students factual knowledge, a structure of logical thinking, and an understanding of social values. According to this camp, students are then prepared for further education and to assume their place in the established structure of their society. 2) Social Scientists: Similar to the traditional historians, social scientists also have a strong position of influence. They represent an array of disciplines which focus on studying people and their behaviors. A social sciences perspective provides students with knowledge of processes for learning about current issues and social problems of interest to them. This camp cites the advantage that students gain a breadth of knowledge by studying civics, geography, economics, and sociology. 3) Social Efficiency Educators: Proponents of this position talk about the needs of the students and their interests, so they seem to lean toward the philosophies of the social meliorists and social reconstructionists. In practice, however, their goal is to prepare students for work in maintaining the social structures that exist. The have greater influence in times of crisis such as the Great Depression or the Red Scare of communism. In those times, the public sees a need for the nation to work together. This camp responds with social studies curriculum that fosters patriotism and problem-solving skills to lead the nation to a more secure and prosperous time. Social efficiency in schools is measured in terms of student productivity in the society upon completion of the course of study. 4) Social Meliorists: Members of this group represent a branch of progressive education. They have influence when the political climate turns towards a path of social change but can lose that position as the environment shifts toward restoring traditional values. These proponents encourage reflective thinking and social improvement through issues-centered social studies and analysis of the problems of democracy. 5.) Social Reconstructionists: This camp represents another progressive branch in social studies. They flourish in a climate of social activism and change such as the 1960s but suffer strong criticism at other times. Critical pedagogy and major restructuring of educational practices are the focus of this group. Their work, though often unpopular, is necessary to the process of changing the inequities and injustices in society. Contribution to the Field Evans’ work gives an historical review of the current struggle over the content and process of social studies instruction in the curriculum. It offers insight into the evolution of the current disengagement in social studies education in public school by identifying key events and people from his insider’s perspective. The power of money, influence, and privilege fragment efforts for a common social studies position, both philosophically and pragmatically. Evans tries to bridge some of these differences by a shift in focus. His thesis is that social studies itself is not the target but rather the pedagogy of critical inquiry that is central to learning about historical events, political systems, social institutions, and global interactions that frame the content. With that stance, he is creating space for groups to find common ground for dialogue around issues of pedagogy. He offers multiple examples and descriptions of materials created for social studies education to make this a valuable professional resource. The chronology focuses on the Euro-centric debates that have been the primary voices of the field in the past century. Few women or other minority opinions have played a role in developing policies that have affected dominant theories and practices. Evans acknowledges these limitations and the exclusion of many alternate stories of people, places, and events in current standardized materials. His commitment to restoring issues-centered progressive education and an attitude of critical thinking into the curriculum is also an affirmation of the voices that have been ignored in defining the goals of social studies education. Perhaps it is time for the NCSS to request another committee report to insist on more social studies instruction in the curriculum that balances content knowledge, processing skills, and civic responsibilities for living in a diverse global community. Such a report may contribute to regaining the public trust in education (Meier, 2002). The standards and testing approach provides only one dimension of assessment of learning, and it is the one that currently dominates curriculum policy decisions (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Further investigation of the many stories of people in our communities adds narrative data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003) from a growing body of qualitative research to enrich today’s social studies. Implications for Social Studies Educators The beliefs of the camps in Social Studies have been dissected and the distinct differences noted. The next step is for educators to move away from the language of conflict, blame, and fragmentation and change the focus to synthesizing the multiple facets into a shared vision for teaching our children. By understanding how priorities shift over time, educators gain courage to continue to speak out in pursuit of their visions of reform in schools. The challenges go beyond the realm of education. The hope for the future lies in engaging in an inclusive conversation that balances the interests of education and community leaders in creating equitable and just solutions in a democracy. Courage and Hope. Reform in policies and practices within educational institutions is slow. In individual schools, the process may be a little easier. Changes in schools and among teachers are like pieces of a shifting mosaic (Hargreaves, 1994). The pieces frequently change as teachers identify themselves by the work of several groups at the same time. The philosophical camps Evans describes are also shifting. Some people find themselves supporting beliefs and practices from more than one group. Their movement among groups nurtures the seeds of dialogue critical in creating inclusive, meaningful social studies curriculum. The courage of these people in times of change marks a path for compromise and collaboration in the larger community that is home to many divergent camps. Finding a shared vision diffuses public criticism toward a particular group, maximizes access to resources, and invites positive interdisciplinary learning projects. Balance. Deciding what to teach the children is not the task of one camp. In a democracy, it takes the understanding from many perspectives to achieve equity and justice. The book investigates five positions in social studies with influence in the twentieth century. With these as a foundation, curriculum writers can turn attention from the conflicts of the past to the task of creating an expanded global content knowledge for the future (Merryfield, 2004). Critics can go beyond a limited measurement of the progress in our schools based on standards and tests, and begin to listen to the narratives that provide a rich assessment of a student’s education as a whole (Tierney & Lincoln, 1997). New work in diversity pedagogy (Sheets, 2004) contributes yet another dimension to understanding what must be included in the new curriculum. Conclusion Evan’s work puts the current ideological conflicts into historical context. He reminds the reader of the time and energy leaders invested in bringing about reforms of previous eras. Critics cry there is not enough historical information in an issues-oriented curriculum; others say students are unprepared for the workforce if they take a smattering of social science courses; and still others fear the strength of traditional values are undercut by special concerns for equity based on gender, language, race, sexual orientation, ability. Today’s reform-minded educators benefit from previous experiences in responding to the attacks on social studies instruction. The task of dialogue and collaboration among educators is a daunting task, yet that is not enough to reach a truce in the social studies wars. The conversation must also include special interest groups in the political and social environment. In a democracy, the opposition can speak out as Evans has done in this book. What do we need to teach our children for them to live as citizens in an increasingly interdependent world? The question does not have a simple answer, but it is now open for discussion. References Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. New York: Longman. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Thelandscape of qualitative research: theories and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press. Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston: Beacon Press. Merryfield, M. (2004). Elementary students in substantive culture learning. Social Education, 68, 270-273. Sheets, R. H. (2004). Diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the teaching-learning process. New York: Allyn and Bacon. Tierney, W., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1997). Representation and the text: reframing the narrative voice. Albany: SUNY. About the Reviewer Reese H. Todd, Ph.D. Department of Curriculum and Instruction College of Education Texas Tech University Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.