Keith Benson

3.30.2008

Graduate School of Education

Comprehensive Exam Submission to Dr. Ben Justice and Dr. Beth Rubin

(1) Explain the relationship between the fields of Social Studies and History. Cite
at least six different sources in your discussion.

The relationship between Social Studies as taught in elementary and secondary

schools and History, a professional discipline, has been dynamic and evolutionary.

As such, the movements of these two distinct subjects has never been static or

stagnant, but rather in constant pushing and pulling against the other as demanded

or desired by outside societal and governmental forces. While balance and goals of

both disciplines would seem to mesh seamlessly without conflict this, however, has

remained elusive.

The first formal social studies curriculum first began in the mid-nineteenth

century. And as the description and expectations of social studies has never been

static, it initially was to be a collection of civic and history centered subjects. Ronald

Evans in the Social Studies Wars writes, “Prior to 1861, what would later be called

social studies was in a rather chaotic condition with a number of isolated subjects

appearing in the curriculum (Evans, 4).” Before long, the one subject that came to

dominate social studies was history.

The cornerstone of the early social studies days were comprised of, in large

measure, lessons of historical “facts”. The early histories usually covered

exclusively pro-European and pro-Anglo history; ancient Greek and Roman, Medieval

European, modern European and American History. History continued to rule the
social studies landscape up until the early 1900’s due to the heavy influence by

American Historical Society, the National Education Association’s Committee of Ten,

and the Committee of Seven of the late 1800’s. These organizations were in

commonly headed by professional collegiate history professors and historians who

desired to see history taught on the secondary level in similar fashion to what a

student could expect to receive in colleges and universities. “The politics of the

Committee of Ten were distinctly conservative and elitist in orientation as it sought

to modernize the curriculum, to establish continuity between secondary schools and

colleges.” (Evans, 7) Because of their elitist and lofty aims, other aspects of the

social studies were virtually ignored.

The turn of the century ushered in new criticisms of the present social studies

curriculum. During the early 1900’s, critics comprised of students, teachers and

school administrators, began to lament that social studies was being dominated

solely by history; Western and perfunctorily world history. Harold Rugg, in

“Reconstructing the Curriculum: An Open Letter to Professor Henry Johnson” wrote,

teachers and administrators were “impatient with the further perpetuation of non-

essential courses and desire to see the courses completely reconstructed.”

(Rugg,46) Critics began voicing their wishes that social studies become more

integrated as far as subject matter, and useful to students. Subsequently, after

increased criticisms were expressed, very little changed concerning the subject

matter and methods of social studies instruction within the classroom.

Those who sought to cure the ailments of the early social studies days

noticed the curriculum present up until 1915 had glaring deficiencies. Social

Studies, until the early 1900’s remained virtually synonymous with United States

history with a smattering of periodic world history included. Further, critics noted
that the history being taught within classrooms was largely irrelevant and

inapplicable in students’ daily lives. Social Studies classes, in the eyes of students,

became a realm of useless historical facts and tidbits. “Mired in the tradition of

ancient history, it gave too little emphasis and made too little connection to

students’ lives.” (Evans, 20) Lastly, reformers noted the method used to teach

history by social studies teachers relied heavily on textbooks and recitation of dates

and names usually disseminated devoid of any historical or conceptual context. In

“Social Education in the Classroom: The Dynamics of the Hidden Curriculum”, Henry

Giroux and Anthony Penna argue “knowledge in social studies textbooks, in fact,

often represents a one-sided and theoretically distorted view of the subject under

study.” It was within this framework of pedagogy, the authoritarian, “objective”, and

patently un-democratic style in which social studies history was taught in its early

years.

The 1916 Report of the Social Studies Committee of 1916, documented the

major weaknesses and shortcomings in the contemporary social studies curriculum.

Acknowledging history’s dominance of the social studies, the 1916 Report called for

more comprehensive and meaningful integration of economics, civics, geography,

along with history. Moving forward, the problem reformers of the contemporary,

history dominated social studies curriculum experienced once the discipline’s

weaknesses had been identified, was one that hampers most groups after initial

planning phases – implementation. Even after to the Report of 1916 was issued,

much of their observations concerning social studies lessons and information

delivery was still largely unchanged. “By the early 1920’s not much had changed as

a result of the 1916 Report. History remained dominant.” (Evans, 41) Most social

studies classrooms even in the 1920’s was still dominated by history and, perhaps
even more problematic, most teachers were teaching the same conservative brand

of history, divergent of context and in denial of an existent socializing “hidden

curriculum” which Phillip Jackson, in Life in Classrooms, refers to peripheral

experiences of students that effects how they learn and process information. The

style of social studies instruction in these conservative days, as described by Paulo

Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was “necrophilic” and was “based on a

mechanic, static, naturalistic, spatialized view of consciousness that transformed

students into receiving objects as it attempt[ed] to control thinking and action.”

(Freire, 77)

Emerging from a relatively successful era of increasing dialogue on the future

of a more diverse social studies curriculum, specifically in the 1930’s, when

traditional social studies began to wane against the backdrop of the Great Crash of

1929, the Great Depression, rising unemployment and greater public fervor to

achieve a sense more equitable social welfare, the recommendations of Progressive

educators like John Dewey and Harold Rugg began to bear fruit. School

administrators and teachers alike advocated for the more progressive brand of

social studies. And up until the early 1940’s, it appeared as though the

progressive’s vision of social might have won out over the conservative, history

centered curriculum. “Social problems, controversial issues, and Problems of

Democracy all received increasing attention, in keeping with the tenor of the times.”

(Evans, 47)

To the Progressives’ and Liberals’ dismay, the vision of a wider accepted

liberal, socially-relevant social studies was dealt a crushing “blow” during the mid

1940’s. This “blow” was manifest in the form of the global conflict familiarly known

as World War II and its subsequent Cold War. “The progressive belief in perfectibility
or improvement was dealt a heavy blow of realism by the war”. (Evans, 70) Where

followers of Dewey and disciples of Rugg were finally gaining traction in

communicating the deficiencies of social studies, the setbacks suffered during and

after WWII would repel much of the advances made in social studies curriculum,

both in thought and practice back to the pre-1916 Report days.

During the 1940’s and 1950’s the conservative educational movement

regained command of social studies yet again. Military education during WWII and

the Cold War era was much like the “social efficiency” ideals sought in social studies

curriculum at that time. Schools and their social studies, in particular, were again

preparing students, primarily, for what they would most likely be when they left

school, or preparing them for what American society needed at that time.

Following the changes of political ideologies concerning social studies from

conservative to progressive, and then from progressive to conservative, even after

the conclusion of WWII, it seemed the social studies continued in the way of

conservatism. During the 1940’s with the rise of dictatorships, as Evans points out,

the country had feeling that preserving our democracy was paramount. And as a

result, anything that was viewed as pro-democracy and pro-American was good,

and therefore a progressive social studies program which focused on the nation’s

social problems became a hindrance. In addition, students in secondary school,

within the social studies curriculum, began to being taught subjects that would be

useful should the day arrive when they would have to fight for out nation’s

democratic ideals. “And so, a focus on preparing students to give their lives for

democracy became a very real purpose for educators.” (Evans, 70)

 Following the conservative 1950’s and into the activist 1960’s and 1970’s

through today, warring ideologies continue to debate and adjust social studies

curriculum resulting in the current curriculum which seeks to increase not only

historical knowledge, but civic knowledge and participation as well. Herbert

Atherton in “We the People…Project Citizen” writes, “Those years witnessed a

resurgence of volunteerism and community service seeking to address the various

manifestations of malaise in the nation’s civitas, from political alienation,

disengagement, and cynicism to materialist preoccupation.” (Patrick, 94) Similarly,

Shirley Engle and Anna Ochoa in a “Curriculum for Democratic Citizenship” capture

today’s prevailing belief that social studies should not be dominated by history, nor

should true social studies be confined within the walls of a classroom. Today’s goals

for social studies is that social studies should “improve the ability of young citizens

to make intelligent and socially responsible decisions is the ultimate goal of the

social studies.”(Engle, 514) Meshing the recommendations made by the Report of

1916, along with more personalized instruction as sought by progressives, today’s

social studies attempts to reach the desired aim through the continuous linking of

historical events to present issues, persistent questioning of current problems, and

a collective communicated desire to improve society through active participation.

In the ideal contemporary social studies curriculum, the past is critically

examined along with the present in order to better understand both. Today’s

educators, tending to be more liberal than those of decades past, believe true

understanding cannot be done in an autocratic environment where docility on

behalf of students, as citizens and potential actors in American society, is a

requirement.
 The past 150 years of social studies education in America has seen its share

of ideological “ebbs and flows”. Unique is social studies in that it is a “living”

subject. What we recognize as proper social studies education today will not be the

same twenty or thirty years later. The struggle between social studies and history

has always and will continue to be dictated by peripheral societal forces. While in

retrospect, it is common for judgments to be passed about past curriculums and

methodology, it is important to remember that one day what we find acceptable in

social studies today may be frowned upon tomorrow. While Evans sees social

studies as a battleground between conservative historians and progressive “social

studies-its”, I prefer to view this conflict as a complex relationship similar to those

held between significant others. You can’t have social studies without history, and

the lessons of history would remain merely data without the action for which true

social studies advocates.

(2) Describe why and how you would cover the presidential election of 2008

in your social studies classes. Cite at least six different sources in your discussion.

The Social Studies, since the publishing of the Report of 1916 had, and

continues to have, documented concerns involving its content, relevancy, and

pedagogy. As rote memorization, textbook reliance, and autocratic instruction was

criticized and decried back in 1916, the prevailing view is the traditional social

studies classroom persists. Gloria Ladson-Billings in, “Differing Concepts of

Citizenship” writes, “Typical courses are organized and taught using lectures,

textbooks, and pencil and paper exams.” In agreement with Ladson-Billings’

assessment, Susan MacManus in “Why Should the Young Desire a Career in

Government or Consider Running for Office?” writes, “the general consensus in that

most high school social studies classes overemphasize “book learning,” are “boring”
to students, and are “largely disconnected from current events.”(Patrick, 118)

Fortunately, the availability of current, up-to-date information through the internet

has the potential to become the antidote for the social studies status quo. Today,

social studies teachers have the ability to instantly access in-depth, subject-related

information that can supplement daily lessons, or be employed as primary

instruction tools. Social studies teachers are now more than ever, able to employ

various teaching materials that can relate the local to international and the past to

the present. In addition to the Internet, the availability of informational from outlets

like Kids Voting USA, Project Citizen, and a host of other civic oriented groups

provide opportunities to transform seemingly irrelevant social studies data gathered

within classroom walls become usable, actionable information yielding tangible

rewards or consequences. Teachers of social studies of prior decades did not have

cutting-edge availability of instructional information and educational tools as do

teachers today. Proper utilization of various and fresh curricula could be the cure for

the “common social studies classroom.”

Referring specifically to the 2008 Presidential Elections, my 11th and 12th

grade high school students, thanks to the never ending news coverage of the 2008

presidential election, political ads on MySpace, and word of mouth from adults and

teachers, recognize something different and interesting about this election season.

Politics has dominated every medium of entertainment (radio, TV, and Internet) in

young American’s lives for the past few months. My students, like most others

around the country, have seen commercials ending with “…and I approve this

message”, have seen their favorite rappers and athletic stars endorse political

candidates, and have seen signs along city streets and in corner-stores reading

“Obama 08”, or “Hillary 08”, since the summer of 2007. As a result, it seems more
curiosity, questions, and participation from my school’s youth concerning politics is

occurring now more so than in the past. While some are aware that the elections

during the winter of 2008, and up through the writing of this response were only

primary elections, enthusiasm still seemed to be burgeoning among students in my

school and classroom. Furthermore, it appears my students’ interest in politics are

being piqued at the right time because while my students were too young to vote in

the 2006 midterm elections, many will be able to vote in the “Big One”, November

2008.

I would be remiss and downright irresponsible if I didn’t mention the impact

of my students, black and Hispanic of low SES, to finally see someone they

recognize in a black candidate, Barak Obama have a legitimate shot at winning the

presidency. And the same holds true for my female students who, at the very least,

are cognizant even proud that a woman, Hillary Clinton, has a good opportunity to

become president.

Capitalizing on the diversity currently in the 2008 Elections, I recognize this

year especially would be an opportune time for me to capture students interest in

electoral politics permanently; no small task. While social studies teachers of

previous eras may have been the single purveyor of information concerning the

presidential electoral voting process, the power the President wields or personal

insights about a candidate, no longer does the instructor have to be student’s sole

source of information. Students can see for themselves the differing paths of

presidential candidates John McCain, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton traveled that

forged their personalities, ideologies and party affiliations; and the potential

consequences of America voting for one candidate over the other. For teachers
such as myself, information and lessons are available online that can assist social

studies teachers in examining this presidential election.

While some of my students are relatively familiar with politics and with the

candidates of the 2008 presidential election, most teachers in general have the pre-

supposition that our students, especially those in urban areas, are wholly

disinterested or completely unaware about political and civic issues. In “Political

Apathy and Avoidance of News Media Among Generations X and Y”, Stephen

Bennett writes, “According to the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress

in civics, most high school seniors lack sufficient understanding of government to

act intelligently as voters.” (Patrick, 9) I have been surprised by my students’

knowledge in the past, and hope this election season would prove Stephen Bennett

incorrect.

Initially, to help students understand the ideological differences between

Republican McCain and Democrats Obama and Clinton, I would give my students a

brief tutorial about the dominant political parties. In “Educating for Citizenship:

Promising Effects of the Kids Voting USA Curriculum”, Steven Chafee states, “Young

people can be engaged with active citizenship through the excitement of an election

campaign, and through the controversies aroused by ballot propositions as well as

by party politics.” Employing outside resources, I would distribute a handout

designed by Project Citizen entitled, “What Do You Know about Political Parties?”

which asks in a class discussion format questions like, “What policies are favored by

the Democratic Party? Republican Party?” and “What are some of the other political

parties (often called third parties) in the United States”. In class discussion format

my students who are interested in politics (and aren’t embarrassed to show their

interest and knowledge), will have a chance to prove stereotypes about the
apathetic youth wrong, and at the same time, have the spotlight to display what

they know – which we all enjoy from time to time.

Also, I cannot underestimate the importance of students being able to relate

to political candidates, specifically those candidates in the 2008 Presidential

Election. John Stone in the “Public Service Academy” writes , “The sad thing is that

few young people ever have the chance to meet any elected officials, let alone a

presidential contender.” (Patrick, 123) Increased exposure to political personalities

can erode students’ perspective that politics and its candidates are untouchable. I

can recall last October when US Senator Robert Menendez and Republican

challenger NJ State Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. came to our school to speak about issues

like education, crime, and the environment ahead of their 2006 US Senate election.

Also, at the beginning of this school year, Governor Jon Corzine also made an

appearance in our school and in some classrooms. While some students remained

uninterested in politics following those visits, what was undeniable, was that there

was a core of extremely interested and excited students who were receptive to their

messages and presence. Recognizing the correlation of candidate familiarity with

politically interested students, I would utilize the Internet to help familiarize

students with candidates. Incorporating a popular website my students love to

observe, MySpace, instead of resisting their urge to log on, I’d use it as a tool. All of

the presidential candidates have MySpace pages that communicate their stances on

issues, and clips on YouTube that attempt shows candidates’ truer personality.

As teachers attempt to transition from an age where civics and politics seem

irrelevant and un-interesting to young Americans, the Internet is a valuable

mechanism that allows students to hear the 2008 Presidential candidates’ own

thoughts through real-time interviews and speeches, along with commentary from
pundits across the pop culture spectrum like GOP commentator Pat Buchanan to

rapper Sean “P. Diddy” Combs. Hopefully, with increased familiarity with each

candidate and politics generally, the results should produce more awareness and

political activism on behalf my students.

Following thorough viewing of relevant Internet media sources, which

could reasonably take 2-3 class sessions, I would use discussion questions that

could either be utilized as a Socratic Seminar, or distribute handouts for students to

answer individually in written form. Questions connecting their viewing of MSNBC

Online, YouTube or MySpace, could allow students insight to help answer questions

like “How did the Vietnam War affect John McCain?” or “How did the Rev. Jeremiah

Wright’s sermon affect Obama’s campaign?”. Students in the immediate post-

media viewing question and answer sessions can communicate what they gleaned

from the sources about the candidates and can be a time where students’ views are

heard and can learn from one another.

Following the media-related discussion, I would highlight major issues present

during the 2008 campaign season to help focus my students on what make this

election distinct from previous elections. To assist in relating learned information

about the 2008 presidential candidates and their respective parties, students would

be asked to complete an exercise called “Where Do You Fit”, which is offered by the

Pew Research Center, similar to our Take a Stand activity. Students are asked to

examine what values they deem personally important and whether they consider

themselves Democrats, Republicans or Independents. The presidential election of

2008 presents Americans for the first time in history represents various races and

both genders and, with it, presents an array of issues and values to consider that

my 11th and 12th grade students will be asked to weigh in on through participation in
the voting process. My students will be reminded that the Iraq War is now in its fifth

year, universal healthcare could be made available, recession, and outsourcing/job

loss are major issues dominating this presidential election.

Lessons on Election of 2008 will allow my students to contribute opinions on

these issues, if not directly by voting, at least through class discussion. My students,

minorities and poor, hold views that are too often marginalized, or ignored

completely. These activities will allow my oft-muted students to begin to see

themselves as part of the political process as they begin to recognize their own

views are, in fact, shared by millions of other Americans nationwide. Dorothy

Stoneman, in “The Role of Youth” notes, “Young people should articulate their views

on policy issues, to study whether their ideas are likely to work, to communicate

their recommendations to legislators and influence leaders at all levels.” Hopefully

then, my students will then recognize their personal positions are either sustained

or denied within the realm of politics; specifically, by voting.

Lastly, I would assign to my students a handout called “Democrats and

Republicans.” Simply, this handout is a data table that focuses on partisan issues

like the role of government, taxation, education, environment, business, social

security and homeland security. The Democrat and Republican columns would be

blank, and with the help of websites like AP Government’s www.apgovernment.com,

the Democratic National Committee’s homepage www.democrats.org , and the

Republican National Committee’s homepage www.gop.org , students can retrieve

information about the two parties and complete the chart. By using the Internet to

complete this assignment, students are employing valuable research skills and, in

effect, learning to teach themselves; as opposed to being spoon-fed information

from their social studies teacher. Further, my students can see the political world is
a few clicks away, rather than this abstract entity. As a result, politics becomes

much more accessible and relevant. By encouraging my students to look inwards in

terms of political party affiliation, a sense of membership could develop, and lead to

future awareness and hopefully, activism.

Additional lesson ideas could be explored depending on time availability.

These prospective lessons include “Candidate Character Traits”, where students are

charged with forming a list of traits their ideal president should possess. Yet another

optional activity entitled “The Youth Vote”, available through www.pbs.org, is an

exercise where students examine the declining rates of voters between the ages of

18 and 24. There students are asked to examine the potential influence of youth in

politics, explore possible of why so many non-profit organizations and funding

agencies have contributed so much energy toward altering the current trend, and

why so many youth are apathetic toward voting.

More than ever, the landscape of the American melting pot is becoming more

and more diverse with America’s population soaring past 300 million people. Many

citizens of this country are not actively participating in the democratic process

either because of lack familiarity or perceived lack of political agency, especially in

poor urban areas. In Education for Civic Engagement in Democracy, John Patrick

writes, “Students should continually be challenged to use information and ideas,

and individually and collectively, to analyze case studies, respond to public issues,

and resolve or meliorate political or civic problems.” (Patrick, 4)

The Presidential Election of 2008 and its aforementioned lessons provide a

valuable teaching opportunity with in-depth content, opportunities for student

participation, and illustration of relevancy. My students would learn their vote does

count and their vote helps determine domestic and foreign policy, laws and war.

Thanks to the accessibility of current information and hipper ways of

delivering it, via the Internet, the 2008 Presidential Election and its incorporated

lessons can further my students’ awareness and curiosity in ways a traditional

lecturing teacher cannot; and its methods should be embraced and utilized in my

classroom whenever possible. Hopefully in the future, after the increasing

implementation of varied instructional tools in social studies, my students will

become eager, informed participants in this American democratic process – one that

had seemed obscure and irrelevant to young American minorities in the past.