CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Presently, there is great diversity of opinion among those responsible for shaping the social studies curriculum. There are polar positions on the most basic issues, and a range of opinions between these poles. Some feel that social studies is in need of drastic revision, others that there is little or no need for concern (Hertzberg, 1981). The purpose of this study is to examine the present status of secondary social studies programs in the state of Missouri. This chapter will review social studies curriculum developments in secondary schools nationwide and in Missouri. Special emphasis will be given to those studies which have a direct relationship to this study.

DEVELOPMENT OF SECONDARY SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM TO 1960
Social studies curriculum criticism has often revolved around the complaint that "the curriculum has been tradition bound in a society which has been unable to remain tradition bound" (Cartwright, 1954, p. 77). The traditional roots of the secondary social studies curriculum date back to the last decades of the nineteenth century. It was the National Education Association, the most important reform agency, that took the lead in setting curriculum. To study the controversial problem of conformity between high school programs and college entrance requirements, the Committee of Ten was commissioned by the National Council of the N.E.A., to report on these issues. Their report in 1893 recommended that an eight year course of study be pursued, and that the six year period covering grades seven through twelve include the following courses:

American history, and elements of civil government.
Greek and Roman history, with their Oriental connections.
French history
English history
American history
A special period, studied in an intensive manner, and civil government. (United States Bureau of Education, 1893, p.163)

The Committee of Ten recommendations were applicable to the entire nation, but were to be flexibly applied with due regard for local conditions. They were based on work already done in good schools, and they made no distinction between college-bound and non-college-bound students (N.E.A., 1893, p.167-168).

The value and advantages of history and allied subjects would be greater when taught by the "newer method" (N.E.A., 1893, p.166-167). The "new methods" included inquiry, extensive use of comparison, informal presentation supplemented by students' presentation in the advanced grades, individual work, field trips, debates, audiovisual aids, and so on, while older methods such as rote recitation from textbooks, extensive lecturing, and "historical catechism" were eschwed (Hertzberg, 1981). The committee declared, that the "new method" would serve to broaden and cultivate the mind; that they counteract a narrow and provincial spirit; that they prepare the pupil in an eminent degree for enlightenment and intellectual enjoyment in after years; and that they assist him to exercise a salutary influence upon the affairs of his country. (NEA, 1893, p.166-167)

Thus did the report seek to balance cultural advantages to the individual with the citizenship needs of society. Schools needed better textbooks containing social and economic as well as political materials, better libraries, and better teachers specially trained in content and methods (Hertzberg, 1981).
Within three years of the Committee of Ten's report, the N.E.A. asked the American Historical Association to look into the still unresolved question of college entrance requirements. The A.H.A. responded by setting up the Committee of Seven. The Committee of Seven--like its predecessor, the Committee of Ten--went far beyond its original scope. The Committee of Seven spent the next three years working on one of the most influential reports in the history of social studies (A.H.A., 1899). The committee's purpose was to make "an elaborate study of values of historical study, curricula in history, methods of instruction, college entrance requirements in history, and history teaching in other countries" (King, 1946, p.13).

The seven went about their study by surveying American, French, English, and German education. From their investigations the main positive lessons derived were the need for trained teachers and for more time for history instruction (Hertzberg, 1981). History was "peculiarly appropriate for a secondary course, which is fashioned with the thought of preparing boys and girls for the duties of daily life and intelligent citizenship" (A.H.A., 1899, p.122). Education should help students acquire some appreciation of the nature of the state and society, some sense of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship (A.H.A., 1899).

The curriculum proposed by the Committee of Seven was as follows:

Grade 9: Ancient history, consisting of a brief survey of ancient nations, fuller attention to Greece and Rome, and a consideration of the early Middle Ages up to 800, 814, or 843.

Grade 10: Medieval and modern European history, from 800 to the present time.

Grade 11: English history.

Grade 12: American history and civil government.

(American Historical Association, 1899, p.34-35)

The pattern of historical curriculum study proposed by the Committee of Seven had a considerable for the next twenty years this would be the prevailing pattern in the high schools of the nation (Wesley and Wronski, 1964). The Missouri Department of Education was quick to follow with their 1905 course of study following the Committee of Seven's recommendations to the letter (Missouri Department of Education, 1905).

The fifteen years between the Committee of Seven's report and that of the 1916 N.E.A. Committee on the Social Studies was a period of intense reform activity in American life (Hertzberg, 1981, p.17). Progressivism was rising at the beginning of the century and would reach its peak in the following decade, at just the same time when the school subjects collectively called "history" would become known as the "social studies." Progressivism sought institutional action to solve the problems of society. John Dewey took an idealized community as his model for the school, looking to a society that would be worthy, lovely and harmonious. The school would be permeated with "the spirit of art, history, and science," saturating the child with "the spirit of service" and "providing him with the instruments of self direction" (Dewey, 1899, p.44).

Within the history profession there was developing at the same time a school known as the "new history." John Dewey was deeply sympathetic to it, and this was the history he advocated for the schools (Hertzberg, 1981). The "new history" was to focus on the history of the last two or three hundred years for explanations as to how the present came to be.

In 1912 when James Harvey Robinson published his Manifesto The New History, three major regional groups--the New England History Teachers Association, the North Central History Teachers Association, and the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland--were exerting national influence. Together they represented a base of support for curricular changes in social studies and an arena in which new ideas in content and methods were debated and new curricular materials were produced for schools. To provide a national forum for different views in social studies, the American History Association took over the financial troubled History Teachers Magazine, which later evolved into Social Education (Hertzberg, 1981).

Within the decade of the founding of a nationalmagazine, separate new social science associations were formed. The study of history had a virtual monopoly on the social studies in the secondary curriculum; however, the non-historical disciplines of the social studies were not long to remain silent. In 1905, the American Political Science Association sponsored an investigation of high school students' knowledge in political science. In the same year Professor W. A. Schafer of the University of Minnesota reported that high school graduates were deplorably ignorant of political science. The result of Schafer's report was the forming and reporting of the 1908 Committee of Five, calling for better trained teachers and better instructional materials in the teaching of government. The report recommended civics instruction beginning in the early grades, a separate course on government in the high school which was distinct from history, and an approach know as the "new civics," which involved a functional rather than a formal approach to government (American Political Science Association Proceedings, 1908).

The Association of American Geographers took no stand on the issue of geography in the curriculum, but individual members in their teaching and writing were making a case for geography in the elementary and secondary curriculum (Hunt, 1962). Sociology, like economics developed a modest role in the curriculum in the absence of, rather than as a result of, the interest or activity of professional associations.

In 1916, after nearly twenty years, the National Education Association again turned its attention to secondary curriculum. The N.E.A. Committee on the Social Studies, whose report was probably the most influential in the history of the social studies, was a part of a larger N.E.A. effort known as the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education (Hertzberg, 1981). The N.E.A. Committee on the Social Studies was headed by Thomas Jesse Jones. The make-up of the committee was significant in that nine of the sixteen members were from the Association of History Teachers of the Middle States and Maryland, whose leader was James Harvey Robinson. Robinson proved to have a major intellectual influence on the outcome of the recommendations (Hertzberg, 1981).

The recommendations of this committee in 1916 provided for minimal alternatives as they proposed the following:

Grade 7: Geography 1/2 year and European history 1/2 year to be taught in sequence orparallel through the year and civics taught as a phase of the above and of the other subjects, or segregated in one or two periods a week.

Grade 8: American history 1/2 year and civics 1/2 year to be taught in sequence or parallel through the year. Also, geography should be taught incidentally to, and as a factor in the subjects.

Grade 9: Civics, to be continued from the proceeding year, but with more emphasis upon state, national, and world aspects for 1/2 year and civics, with emphasis on the economics and vocational aspects for 1/2 year.

Grade 10: European history.

Grade 11: American history.

Grade 12: Problems of American Democracy.

(Tryon, 1935, pp.17-20)

This secondary pattern might be characterized as two cycles of "contracting environments." The major justification of the Committee for this pattern of organization is revealed in the following quote from their report:

The course of social studies proposed for the years seven through nine constitutes a cycle to be followed by a similar cycle in the years ten through twelve, and presumably preceded by another similar cycle in the six elementary grades. This grouping is based chiefly upon the fact that large numbers of children complete their schooling with the sixth grade, and another large contingent with the eighth and ninth grades. (Dunn, 1916, p.12)

This two cycle pattern was conceived at and for a time when few people graduated from high school, when large numbers of immigrants had come to America, when the the country was close to entering the first world war, and when historians had a strong influence on the social studies profession. This pattern is believed to have been very common in 1916. By 1924 one-third of the high schools were following this scope and sequence structure. It soon became the dominant pattern for secondary social studies curriculum organization in the country (Hertzberg, 1981).

Recent data from the National Science Foundation studies indicate that, although some changes in this curriculum pattern have occurred in the last sixty years, and despite changes in society, the dominant structure of secondary social studies curriculum today is remarkably similar to that of the 1916 pattern (Morrissett, 1982). Considering what states require, what students enroll in, what teachers teach, what schools offer, what state and local guides promote, what textbooks are available, the following pattern of social studies courses (with some differences and reversals) predominates today:

Grade 7: World History/Cultures/Geography

Grade 8: U.S. History

Grade 9: Civics/Government or World Cultures/History

Grade 10: World Culture/History

Grade 11: U.S. History

Grade 12: American Government and Sociology/Psychology.

(Morrissett, 1982, p.34)

This pattern reflects several changes from the 1916 report. European history has been changed to world history, which included the study of Africa, Asia, and other areas. This was primarily due to the Schafer Committee of 1920. Ninth-grade civics has given ground to world history, and the twelfth-grade Problems of Democracy has changed to electives such as American government, sociology, and psychology.

The 1916 report urged a topic approach to history. The selection of a topic and time devoted to it should depend "not upon its relative proximity in time, nor yet its relative present importance from the adult or sociological point of view, but also and chiefly upon the degree to which such topics can be related to the present life interest of the pupil, or can be used by him in his life process of growth" (National Educational Association, 1916, p.9). In this quote, the report combined the "new history" of Robinson with the pedagogy of Dewey, both of whom were quoted extensively in the 1916 report. Thus these two men greatly affected the curriculum of the high school and colleges (Hertzberg, 1981). The 1916 report, which gained wide acceptance in the twenties, was clearly dominated by history, even though the other disciplines were making inroads (Hertzberg, 1981).

Since the report of the Committee of Social Studies of 1916, several reports, commissions, and committees have designated, assembled, studied, and reported on the social studies curriculum. Not one of these has had the impact of the Committee of Social Studies of 1916. In 1934, one of the most prestigious assemblages was the Commission on the Social Studies in the Schools. Its prestige was due to its members: scholars such as Charles Beard, Avery Craven, Carlton Hayes, Charles Merriam, Jesse Steiner, and Ernest Horn. This commission produced a seventeen-volume report plus countless individual books covering all aspects of social studies education, but none of these publications endorsed or modified the recommended pattern of the Committee of the Social Studies of 1916 (A.H.A., 1934,and Daniels, 1975, 18).

In 1935, another commission was formed, this being the Educational Policies Commission. Its leaders were two warring members of the A.H.A., George Counts and Edmund Day. The E.P.C.'s report published in 1940, surveyed some 90 schools and described six different types of education for democracy which were practiced in school. The commission concluded that all six types had promise but did not fulfill the commission's objectives. Those objectives included citizenship education that was active, participatory, and reflective and which involved the total life of the school (Educational Policies Committee, 1940). The E.P.C. report clearly supported some kind of curricular fusion. The main result was the "core curriculum" combining social studies and English. But in spite of all the fuss over fusion in the curriculum, the core curriculum did not effect a new, national, updated version of social studies curriculum (Hertzberg, 1981).

In contrast to the E.P.C.'s report was the Social Studies in General Education, a 1940 report of the Progressive Education Association. The P.E.A. bypassed the curriculum as scope and sequence almost entirely; instead the report focused on the needs of adolescents--social/civic, personal/social, economic, personal/living and community living. The P.E.A. committee's approach exemplified a favorite preoccupation of the 1930's, the adolescent (Hertzberg, 1981). The criteria the committee advocated for the selection of materials were "those which can be used directly to meet the needs of the particular adolescent" (The Social Studies in General Education, 1940, p.385). The report thus envisioned a social studies education which satisfied adolescent needs. Both the E.P.C. and P.E.A. volumes represented two different approaches to the social studies curriculum at the end of the 1930's, both speaking in the name of education for democracy. Both of these reports were reform documents, not representing widespread or typical school practices, but voicing hopes for the future.

In 1941, the National Association of Manufacturers commissioned a study of social studies textbooks. Ralph Robey of Columbia, published an attack on the textbooks used in social studies in the New York Times. Robey charged that the textbooks criticized our form of government, held the private-enterprise system in contempt, and were poorly written by persons who were not real authorities in their field (New York Times, 1941). Robey's article in the Times was followed by another attack on the social studies curriculum by Allan Nevins, an American historian. Nevins charged that American History was neglected in schools and colleges and that "probably the majority of American children never received a full year's careful work in our national history" (Nevins, New York Times Magazine, 1942). After Nevins' article was published, the New York Times buttressed it with a survey of its own, showing that 82 percent of universities did not require American history for graduation and that 72 percent did not require it for admission (New York Times, 1942). With all this attention towards social studies the Committee on American History in Schools and Colleges was commissioned by the American Historical Association, Mississippi Valley Historical Association, and the National Council for the Social Studies with all the same personnel, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

As the Committee on American History in Schools and Colleges began its work, the Times published the results of its own test administered to 7000 college freshman from 36 institutions. The results showed "a striking ignorance of the most elementary aspects of United States history" (New York Times, April 4, 1943). A number of editorials in the Times and statements by Congress all deplored the ignorance revealed in the test and called for better history teaching. The uproar caused the resignation of Hugh Fraser, of the Office of Education, who helped prepare the test for the Times.

In 1944, the Committee on American History in the School and College published its own report after it administered its test. The committee concluded that "understanding of and insight into American history result from slow but nevertheless continuous and persistent growth" (Wesley, American History, 1944, p.v). The report stated that Americans do not know American history as well as they might; therefore, the subject should be retaught until the cumulative effect becomes "significant and enduring" (Wesley, American History, 1944, p.12). The committee made no revisions of the 1916 scope and sequence; rather they addressed teaching by proposing the following themes: middle grades, "How People Live"; junior high, "Building a Nation"; senior high level, "A Democratic Nation in a World Setting"; college level, "American Civilization" (Hertzberg, 1981, p.70). The themes were suggested to achieve cumulative learning rather than merely repetitive learning. The committee pointed to the value of history in the outside world and felt that other agencies besides the schools (and cooperation between historians and out of school organizations) could work toward improving cumulative learning. However, the committee cautioned against attempts by organized groups to dictate specific curricula and by legislatures to write the social studies curricula or pass restrictive or punitive laws concerning teachers (Wesley, American History, 1944. p.118-121).

After the report by the Committee on American History in Schools and Colleges and World War II, secondary education again turned its attention to general education. One of the major manifestations was the Citizen Education Projects. First was the Detroit Citizenship Education Project which began in 1945, following the 1943 race riots in Detroit. The model used was the "cooperative-curriculum" approach, enlisting the participation of teachers, principals, pupils, and parents. The project attempted to increase "the understanding, interest, competence and participation of boys and girls in the activities of good citizens so that they will try to be active citizens throughout their lives" (Diamond, 1953, p.12).

The major conclusion of the Detroit C.E.P. was that "the emotional adjustment of pupils is the most important factor in the quality of citizenship for boys and girls"(Hertzberg, 1981, p.77). The committee of the Detroit C.E.P. stated that the schools gave insufficient attention to alternative solutions and also evaluative and critical thinking skills. There was no need for more or new courses because the knowledge component was reasonable; it was the participatory aspects, critical thinking and developing concern for others, that needed improvement.

The most ambitious of the citizenship projects was the Citizenship Education Project at Teachers College, Columbia University. The Dean of Columbia was William Russell whose interest was international education and learning by doing. Russell believed education of citizens required not only book knowledge but emotion and action. As a proof Russell pointed to France, a nation which had a highly advanced civic education relying on book knowledge. Russell felt that France had fallen quickly in World War II because its educational system had neglected emotion and participation.

Russell, with the help of Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of Columbia College, presented a proposal to the new member of the Carnegie Board, General George C. Marshall. The goal was to change citizenship education in all the nation's schools over a fifteen-year period, to help students become active, responsible citizens through actual, practical citizenship participation--a Deweyan learning by doing (Hertzberg, 1981).

The major weakness of the Citizenship Education Project at Teachers College seemed to be the failure to provide for enough institutional support to the teachers using the lab practices and sketchy evaluation procedures. The attempt of the C.E.P. projects to turn citizenship education into citizenship action quickly throughout the nation spread itself too thin. The Citizenship Education Project came to an end in 1957, at the same time the two million dollars of the Carnegie fund ran out.

Another related but different type of citizenship education innovation popular during this period was the core curriculum. Core curriculums combine two or more school subjects (primarily English and social studies) around a single theme or problem. The strengths of the core curriculum included highly prepared teachers, sophisticated scheduling without computers, and students and teachers interested in grasping new relationships. But frequently problems arose involving scheduling difficulties, teachers unprepared or not instructed in the proper methods of teaching core curriculum, and teachers and students not motivated to grasp new relationships.

Development of the Secondary Social Studies 1960 to 1987
The orgins of the "new social studies" were in the mid-1950s. The critiques of the schools in the 1950'scame from journalists and university intellectuals who were outside the public school establishment. They charged that American schools had become soft and that academic programs compared unfavorably with those of other parts of the world. Critics advocated inservice training for teachers whose classroom emphasis had been on the findings of social scientists rather than upon the techniques used in arriving at conclusions. By 1957 six major national projects had been established in math and science for the major purpose of inservice training of teachers (Hertzberg, 1981 and Armstrong, 1980).

The major idea was to re-educate teachers in the inquiry or discovery method, the value of which was noted by Hertzberg:

The inquiry or discovery method used by scholars in the disciplines to generate new knowledge and ideas was also believed to be the best way for students of the disciplines to learn,one that would stimulate their interest and encourage the transfer of learning. (Hertzberg, 1981, p.86)

In order to provide needed materials, inservice training and programs for the gifted and talented students, funds were needed. The Soviets launching of Sputnik I in October of 1957 uncorked the funds. These funds primarily came from the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Carnegie Corporation, the United States Air Force, the Rand Corporation, the United States Office of Education, and the National Science Foundation which sponsored a conference held at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in the fall of 1959. The participants at the conference were university scientists whose report took the form of a book by Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education. Central to many curricular projects trying to respond to Bruner's was that students ought to be taught not only the findings of historians and social scientists but also the processes these professionals used in arriving at their conclusions.

One of the earliest studies using these new funds that was closely aligned with citizenship purposes of social studies education was the Harvard Project, headed by Donald Oliver. There were several other projects in history, economics, and geography which were much closer than the Harvard Project to the Brunerian approach. Two history projects--one at Amherst College, by Van Halsey, and one at Carnegie-Mellon, by Edwin Fenton--focused on the use of primary sources. The creator of a project to teach economics to elementary school students was Lawrence Senesh, a professor of economics at Purdue University, who was responsible for the project in Elkhart, Indiana.

The high school geography project was a joint effort of the Association of American Geography, and the National Council for Geographic Education. The joint committee was funded by the Ford Foundation for the Advancement of Education. All of these projects were to become important parts of the social studies reforms of the 1960's. These projects were for the most part locally based in universities and colleges, led by scholars of the disciplines, focused on traditional subjects, and backed by private funds.

The massive government support for the social studies or social sciences began with the projects in 1961 which followed the established lines used by mathmatics and science (Hertzberg, 1981). In 1961 the National Science Foundation funded two new curriculum projects in the behavioral sciences. Sociology was represented by the American Sociological Association's Sociological Resourses for the Social Studies, and anthropology, which had not previously been a school subject, was represented by the American Anthropological Association with the Anthropology Curriculum Study Project.

In the fall of 1962 the United States Office ofEducation announced "Project Social Studies" calling for proposals from educators, historians, and social scientists to improve research, instruction, teacher education, and the dissemination of information (Hertzberg, 1981). A report at the 42nd annual meeting of the NCSS noted "the social studies are in a crisis with a multitude of pressures and project proposals, some kind of revolution is coming, what nobody knows" (Social Education, 1963).

Very few projects in the early 1960's began with an overall design and there were no scope and sequence proposals which had organization or institutional support. The problem of scope and sequence being absent from projects was addressed by Paul Hanna. Hanna urged that each project defer piece mealing particular components until the project team could propose an approach that clearly demonstrated the overall structure of social studies education in which its own content and processes would best fit (Hanna, 1963). Hanna was one of the very few educators in this period even to attempt a specific scope and sequence not tied to specific materials (Hertzberg, 1981). Hanna believed the secondary social studies curriculum should consist of separate disciplines: first a year of geography, then a year of world history, then required semesters of economics and political institutions and processes, emphasizing American theories and practices in a world framework (Hanna, 1963). The final year would be a Problems of Society course with options and solutions studied, calling on all the social studies disciplines. American history had been almost universally accepted for the junior year since the 1916 report, but Hanna left it out for reasons which have never been made entirely clear by Hanna.

By 1963, the United States Office of Education had contracted to set up seven new curriculum centers at universities with arrangements to support them for five years. By 1965 the number had risen to twelve social studies centers. In addition to the projects, developers now had an organization of their own, the Social Studies Educational Consortium directed by Irving Morrissett. This new movement developed an organization for its own purposes just like the 1916 report had done in forming the NCSS (Hertzberg, 1981).

It was not until 1965 that this 1960's reform movement got a name--the New Social Studies--in an article in Social Education by John Good and Edwin Fenton in April of !965, which discussed Project Social Studies. Like the term "social studies," the "new social studies" name came after the fact rather than before. In Fenton and Good's article they identified the major characteristics of all or most of the projects:

Identification of the structure of the individual disciplines and/or basic social science concepts, discovery or inductive teaching and learning, use of the modes of inquiry of historians and social scientists, an attempt to build in cumulative, sequential learning, the notion that any idea can be taught successfully in some form to any child at any age, the challenge to the older subjects (history, geography, and civics) by the social sciences, the proliferation of an explosive variety of new audiovisual materials, and teacher involvement, largely through field testing in experimental classes. (Fenton and Good, 1965, p.207)

The new social studies projects continued to grow after 1965, so much so that by 1967 there were more than 50 national curriculum development projects (Haas, 1977, p.58). Materials were slow to appear due to the careful design, testing, and retesting procedures used by project developers. This hindered production of materials for mass distribution. It wasn't until 1967 that a large amount of new social studies materials began to be circulated (Haas, 1977, pp.57-58).

A survey in 1967 of 42 new curriculur guides revealed that schools had been picking up on the "new social studies" (Frazer, 1967). This was a very small sample and it becomes dangerous to make rash generalizations. In Social Education and in the projects, "new social studies" seemed to be full blown in the mid to late 1960's. However, school curriculum during the same time period assumed a somewhat different picture. The "new social studies" definitely made some influences in the curriculum guides and in the classroom but was certainly not all-pervasive.

By 1967 the "new social studies" dominated social studies reform, but it is difficult to estimate how much the "new social studies," even in diluted form, actually affected the classroom--a familiar problem to all reform movements (Hertzberg,1981). The basic assumption of the "new social studies" was that the reform would be made through the introduction of the new carefully designed materials. But it was not until 1972, that a substantial amount of material was available for classrooms (Morrissett,1982).

There are five reasons why the implementation of the "new social studies" was not successful according to Hazel Hertzberg. First the leaders were unaware of the past history of social studies education, namely that new social studies projects were sometimes a decade too late, e.g. core curriculum. Secondly, the "new social studies" projects, even though designed and manned with social scientists, neglected or entirely overlooked the social events and upheavals of the 1960's. They neglected to realize the impact of the civil rights movement, the anti Vietnam War movement, riots in the urban areas, the suffering of the poor, blacks, and minorities, and the involement of the young in protests. Third, most of the project teams had only slight exposure to the real world due to the fact that their research was with the schools who agreed to the testing of the new materials. The project teams failed to see the teacher as anything more than a recipient and implementor of material and all students as scholarly inquirers all at the same intellectual level. Fourth, the project team had little extra time to stand back and reflect on the materials they were developing. And fifth, the project team mistakenly assumed that the large amounts of money poured into the developing of the projects would justify the projects' value and assure their success (Hertzberg, 1981).

The "new social studies" image of the student came not from what the students were doing or saying, but rather from the leaders of the movement as they envisaged the student role. To the future teachers the "new social studies" conception of the student was ridiculous and intolerable. These future teachers' own experiences consisted of sit-ins, anti-war protests, and challenges to authority figures. The future teachers were taking a more active role. They were not content just to be implementors and recipients of materials; they wanted their classes to be "relevant"--to social problems and to self-realization. The idea that the student was an academic inquirer with the "new social studies" was replaced in the late 1960's and 1970's with the social problems/self-realization approach.

The April, 1969, issue of Social Education was entirely devoted to "black Americans and social studies and minority groups in American society." Nathan Hare in the April, 1967, issue of Social Education advocated courses in black history and culture that "must be, above all, the story of the struggle and aspirations of the black race; not merely a cataloging of the white race's undernourished if not infected conception of the black race and its goals--a view endorsed in one way or another by black assimilationists as well as the white majority" (Hare, 1967, p.358). Hare advocated the celebration of black holidays along with proposing the idea of black week. Edwin Fenton in the April, 1967, issue of Social Education, urged a "more significant treatment of black history, emphasizing total impact rather than individual contributor's biography which was insufficient" (Fenton, 1967, p.397). The education of blacks and whites should help students develop positive self concepts, constructive attitudes to learn, coherent value systems, essential learning skills, and sophisticated inquiry techniques" (Fenton, 1967, p.398).

Another emphasis following 1968 was citizenship education. Law education was another aspect of citizenship education, and Social Education in the 1960's carried a number of articles directed toward law and court cases. In 1972, Social Education devoted an entire issue to the teaching of American government and civics. A 1971 survey by the American Political Science Association examined the attitudes of high school seniors toward their civics and government courses. The students selected were white, middle-class, and college bound. The students' concerns turned out to be "cosmopolitan," which was defined as an interest in national or international topics rather than state or local topics (Remy, 1972). The students (90%) stated the political issue that aroused the most interest was "war and peace"--not surprising since the survey was taken during the Vietnam War. Following war and peace in interest were congress, race relations, law and the court system, poverty, and student protest. Students felt they received more "new" knowledge from science (77%) than from civics and United States history (27%) (Remy, 1972). Forty-five percent of the students favored participation in political activity within the school and evaluating the conquences in class discusion groups as the way they could best learn. Students (22%) reported that they felt they had participated in real political and/or community activities as a part of a civic or government class. The students believed the participation courses were much better than other social studies courses (Remy, 1972). The virtual monopoly once held by the legal/historical approach had been broken according to Judith Gillespie and Howard Mehlinger who saw two choices, political action and political inquiry alternatives, first in the community and second in the classroom (Gillespie and Mehlinger, 1972).

Along with minorities and citizenship, another area of emphasis during the 1970's was social problems or crises. This was the social studies equivalent of special-interest politics. The special-interest issues included urbanization, environmentalism, population, furturism, women's studies, and area studies, such as Africa and Asia. Another emphasis was primarily methodological or procedural, focusing on behavioral objectives, role plays and simulations, individual instruction, decision making, teacher and student choice, and values education (Hertzberg, 1981).

By 1971, the "new social studies" and the newer social problems/self-realization approach were using the same terminology and frequently drawing on the social sciences for reference. The common ground was in objectives, concepts, inquiry, a concern with processes, valuing, and, of course, to overlook scope and sequence (Hertzberg, 1981).

Even the 1971 National Council for the Social Studies curriculum guidelines avoided the scope and sequence issue. According to the 1971 guidelines, the social studies had a two fold purpose: "to enhance human dignity through learning and to promote rational processes as principal means of attaining that end" (NCSS Guidelines, 1973, p.7). Social problems were "main concerns of the social studies curriculum" whose curriculum components were "knowledge," "abilities,""valuing," and "social participation" (NCSS Guidelines, 1973). These along with diversity, flexibility, and student choice and involvement were in the checklist of about 60 items by which curriculums were to be evaluated.

The curriculum components were explained independently but linked to one another in their definitions. Knowledge was to be "about the real world and knowledge about the worthiness of personal and social judgements are basic objectives of social studies instruction" (NCSS Guidelines, 1973, pp.8-9). Abilities were defined as "providing the means of achieving objectives, and one who is able and skillful reaches his objectives efficiently. Included in the ability concept are intellectual, data processing, and human relations competencies" (NCSS Guidelines, 1973, p.10).

The guidelines joined the long list of documents that condemned indoctrination; however, valuing permeated the 1971 guidelines. The school was to provide opportunities for free examination of the value dilemmas underlying social issues and problematic situations in the everyday lives of the students. Students need systematic and supportive help in examining differences among other persons and groups and in clarifying the value conflicts within themselves (NCSS Guidelines, 1973, p.13). Students must understand that facts alone do not determine decisions, that there are times that judgments and problematic situations have no absolute answers (NCSS Guideline, 1973). And finally, "social participation in a democracy calls for individual behavior guided by the values of human dignity and rationality and directed toward resolution of the problems facing society" (NCSS Guidelines, 1973, p.14). Thus the school is the responsible agent where the application of knowledge, thinking, valuing, and commitment in the social area should be promoted both inside and outside of the four walls of the school.

The guidelines also addressed other important matters such as clear and specific objectives; evaluations that covered knowledge, skills, and abilities far beyond formal examinations; materials that relied on a broad range of learning resources because no one text was sufficient; and support in teacher preparation, total school programs; adequate materials; and safeguards against demands to install certain beliefs or practices into the social studies programs. There is little evidence that the NCSS Guidelines were actually used on any substantial scale (Hart, 1975, p.92). The chief interest of theguidelines was to reconcile the "new social studies" with the newer movement that would follow.

In the early 1970's, the "new social studies projects were surveyed and reported in Social Education. The 26 projects selected were funded by government or foundation sources rather than commercial organizations. The first review of the survey noted students were by no means as excited by discovery and inquiry as had been hoped, and it was far from established that these methods were effective (Sanders, 1970). The second survey featured the combination of the NCSS 1971 Guidelines with the Curriculum Materials Analysis System(CMAS) developed by the Social Science Education Consortium. The second survey revealed a somewhat freehand version of the NCSS Guidelines in about two-thirds of the projects and that focus was a "contemporary focus" which was "present in the materials" and that such a focus was present in the remaining one-third with "teacher modification" (Davis, 1972, p.714-717). The idea of "focus" seemed to be a subdued version of the social-problem orientation of the guidelines. According to the survey most of the projects dealt with value conflicts, active involvement by students and teacher, and most were flexible. The five projects which best fit the NCSS Guidelines criteria without teacher modification were the Anthropology Curriculum Study Project, the Carnegie Slow Learner Project, the High School Geeography Project, the Minnesota Project Social Studies, and the Utah State University Analysis of Public Issues (Davis, 1972, p.717).

Another project in 1971 was sponsored by the American Bar Association which set up a Special Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship, to be a clearinghouse and coordinating agency for other projects. This project was for citizenship education or citizen education, the latter was used to distinguish it from the past movement. The interest in law related education stemmed from several sources; upheavals in the schools, the growth of violence in the school and the nation, the Watergate scandal, and accumlating evidence that students' knowledge of basic legal processes, rights, and responsibilities was deteriorating (Final Report..., 1979).

An additional component in citizenship education was valuing, which was expanded to include "moral education, based on the cognitive moral stages of Lawerance Kohlberg. Two "new social studies" reformers-Edwin Fenton, a chief advocate of Kohlberg, and Jack Fraenkel, a chief critic-were the main debaters in the April, 1976, issue of Social Education devoted to "moral education" (Fenton, 1976, and Fraenkel, 1976). This exchange between Fenton and Fraenkel was notable because it was one of the few instances in the 1970's of forceful debate on an issue (See Fenton, 1976, and Fraenkel,1976, as well as January, Social Education, 1977).

Other topics besides law-related education, valuing, and moral education that were to be injected into citizenship education were such topics as global, career, consumer, political, energy, pollution, environmental, and populational growth education. These topics were primarily promoted by special interest groups to be placed in the curriculum. This pressure was usually in the form of money or funding, by a voluntary organization, governmental agency, or special interest group. These organizations pushed for the inclusion of their topic into the curriculum with little or no regard for what impact it might have on the total curriculum. There was very little debate on these topics, unlike the exchanges on "moral education" between Fenton and Fraenkel (Hertzberg, 1981).

Citizenship education was the major emphasis in 1975, by the NCSS Board of Directors. Following the suggestion of the Board of Directors, the next several NCSS Presidents' addresses dealt with citizenship education. James Shaver, NCSS president and a major supporter for 20 years of citizenship education, saw this as the major purpose of social studies education and criticized the "new social studies" movement for its disciplinary approach and its lack of attention to social problems (Shaver, 1977). Shaver called for the development of rationale to develop citizenship education curriculum with scope and sequence. Shaver declared social studies would continue to diminish and rightly so if there wasn't more self awareness and conscious thought about how we develop curriculum and teaching without self-criticism (Shaver, 1977). Citizenship education and its recent resurgence of interest were again the focus of the 1977 NCSS presidential address by Howard Mehlinger (Mehlinger, 1978). It is interesting to note that neither American history nor any other history was discussed by Shaver or Mehlinger in relation to citizenship education.

American history or at least American history text books were analyzed by Francis FitzGerald in America Revised: History Textbooks in the 20th Century. FitzGerald's most compelling section dealt with how the 1970's textbooks were manufactured, standardized and adopted (Hertzberg, 1981). The book did not reveal input from or contact with schools, classrooms, teachers, and students. FitzGerald echoed the 1950's critiques along with some variation from 1960's and 1970's concern for social studies education. In retrospect, America Revised renewed interest in the investigation of textbooks.

One of FitzGerald's greatest criticisms was that American history texts had been sprinkled with piecemeal reports of the protest movements by blacks, other minorities, and women during the 1960's and 1970's, with little regard to integrating these groups' histories into a coherent view of American social structure. In the late 1970's ethnic studies changed to "multiethnic studies" (Banks, 1978). "The purpose of multiethnic education was to develop awareness and sensitivity to combat prejudices, thus giving a child both a firm and positive self-concept rooted in a sense of cultural identity and a positive and informed attitude toward persons of other ethnic groups" (Hertzberg, 1981, p.147). Underlying this concept of multiethnic education was cultural pluralism as the basis of nationality, replacing the old concept of America, the melting pot.

The multiethnic view consisted of different cultures existing in the presence of a dominant culture, historically and presently. Multiethnic or multicultural education was in practice essentially bicultural, a circumstance disliked by multiethnic educators. The two cultures were the group in question and the dominant one, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Thus, when attempts were made to truly combine everyone into multiethnic studies, problems arose as was illustrated by various articles appearing in Social Education. Chester Youngblood wanted blacks present at the program's determination level for bilingual-bicultural education programs for Mexican-American children (Youngblood, 1978). James A. Banks' in Social Education, 1978, wanted more ethnic groups involved at all levels of all multiethnic programs. The problem of a hidden agenda was Theodore Kaltsounis' concern. Was Youngblood wanting to help Chicano children, or to make blacks more acceptable to Chicanos? (Kaltsounis, 1978). And the final criticism was by Geneva Gay who emphasized a broader approach, a balanced, focused, and appreciative study of many ethnic groups. Gay wanted students to actually examine the stereotypes and prejudices held by each ethnic group (Gay, 1978).

In 1979, the melting pot concept had a defender in John Jarolimek, a self-described white ethnic, whose ideas found there way into the pages of Social Education. Jarolimek stated that the melting pot concept was "a powerful system of indoctrination imposed on aliens" (Jarolimek, 1979, p.204). He went on to state "it is to the everlasting credit of this nation that it did what it should have done with the immigrants--put them to work, sent their children to school, encouraged them to settle the lands of the frontier, and taught them the values of individualism, freedom, democracy, civic responsibility, and respect for others," encouraging them to "break out of the ethnic enclosures and become part of the mainstream of America" (Jarolimek, 1979, p.206). Whether you called it a melting pot or process of cultural assimulation, it worked remarkably well. Jarolimek felt we have done enough to promote ethnic identity; any more efforts would be counterproductive.

The new or renewed emphases that emerged during the decade were reflected in the 1979 NCSS Guidelines, which revised the 1971 guidelines. The words "nation" and "citizenship education" reappeared but modestly, and basic skills recommendations were added. Women, a group previously ignored were added to history, and "chicanos" were now referred to as "hispanics" (NCSS Guidelines, 1979). The problem of scope and sequence, social problems versus the disciplines, and the relationship of the social sciences to other diciplines were not mentioned or referred to in the 1979 NCSS Guidelines.

One item that was not mentioned in the 1979 NCSS Guidelines was the trouble the social studies was in, in the schools. Richard Gross who conducted a survey in 1973, which demonstrated that the social studies field was in trouble, was not published until 1977 in Social Education. Gross used the survey results of Logan Osternhorf and Paul Horn published in Current Offerings, Enrollments, and Curriculum Practices in Public Schools 1972-1973, for comparison to his 1973 survey. Between 1961 and 1973 the secondary school enrollment increased (59%), but social studies enrollments were mixed, from significant increases to drastic decreases (Gross, 1977). According to both the 1961 and 1973 surveys, U.S history, U.S. government, and world history had the largest enrollment of the social studies classes. Of these classes, the first two held their own in the rising enrollment, but world history did not fare as well, with only a slight increase. The enrollment in problems of democracy and civic courses dropped drastically. The number of schools offering U.S. history and world history dropped from the 1961 to the 1973 survey the changes being 73 percent to 53.3 percent and 68.6 percent to 49.5 percent respectively (Gross, 1977). This decline could be partly explained by a major move during this period to "topics" electives, many of which were in fact historical in nature.

The increase in social studies were primarily in the social sciences. The percentage of change from 1961 to 1973 in high school economics was +102 percent, in sociology +175 percent, and the greatest in psychology with a +323 percent (Gross, 1977). Gross also pointed out that the social studies had not held their own in the total growth of student enrollment in secondary schools (Gross, 1977). The pattern varied from state to state, but Pennsylvania is considered typical with gains in government, state history, sociology, and psychology, and with losses in world history, geography, problems of democracy and economics. Indiana, California, New York, and Texas all had increases in secondary school enrollment but with losses in student enrollment in the social studies (Gross, 1977). Part of this decline was due to the trend of lowering state social studies requirements. Gross' study showed that (25%) of local school districts had reduced their requirements, leading him to believe it was a local, grassroots, community movement (Gross, 1977).

Following Gross' survey, the NCSS commissioned a study headed by James Shaver, O.L. Davis, Jr., and Suzanne Helborn in 1979. An abbreviated version published in Social Education, February 1979, contained their findings: the teacher was the key to the social studies and the textbook the dominant tool; the major goal of social studies was socialization; learning was to be from printed material; good citizenship was to exhibited by the student; and reading was necessary for the "back to basics" movement. Teachers supported the "back to basics" movement; and social studies teachers' concerns were different from those of college professors, mainly in the areas of classroom management and socialization (Shaver, Davis, Helburn, 1979). There were some differences between Gross' survey and that of the NCSS. Gross noted in his survey the fragmentation of social studies education; however, the NCSS did not find this to be true. The main reason for their different viewpoints may be the period of time between the surveys: Gross conducted his during the heyday of topics courses; in contrast, the NCSS conducted its survey as the topic course bandwagon was slowing down. Scope and sequence was mentioned and according to Gross the 1916 scope and sequence had been eroded, whereas the NCSS report concluded that the 1916 scope and sequence was still alive.

Together, the Gross and NCSS reports offered a great deal of information on the status of social studies education. It should be noted that they were different in approaches. Gross reported long-term trends covering the whole country. The NCSS study dealt with case studies, primarly concerned with the teacher and the classroom. Gross was interested in scope and sequence and the NCSS less so. The social studies of the 1970's opened with a flourish but closed on a somewhat retrospective note. The decade was ending but effective reform had yet to emerge.

If there was a movement it seemed to be the "back to basics" movement. In the annual Gallup Poll since 1975, the pollsters had asked the public for ways toimprove education--the advice "devoting more attention to teaching the basics," either headed the list or never ranked lower than number three (Gallup, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980). The "back to basics" movement meant different things to different people. It usually connotes a curriculum with heavy emphasis on reading, writing and mathematics. Some felt this meant solid subjects--English, history, science, math--taught in all grades. "History" was to include U.S. and European history and perhaps Asian and African history, but not Afro-American history or ethnic studies (Ornstein, 1982).

The "back to basics" curriculum movement, which had surfaced among parents and educators, probably arose because of the perception of a general relaxation of academic standards in the late sixties and early seventies and declining student achievement scores in reading, writing, and computation. The dizzying array of elective courses and textbooks designed to be more entertaining than educational were cited as causes for the decline in basic skills (Ornstein, 1982).

By 1978, thirty-three states had set minimum achievement standards for elementary and secondary students, and the remaining states had legislation pending or were studying the situation (Pipho, 1978). In 1981, the NCSS Statement on the Essentials of the Social Studies urged a balanced education of skills, knowledge (courses of social studies, i.e. history, geography, government, economics and social institutions), democratic beliefs, and civic action (NCSS Statement on Essentials, 1981).

With public education in the United States in trouble, and reforms in public education overdue, Robert Ebel proposed three radical solutions for the problems as he saw them. First, no instructional program should be undertaken or continued in the absence of evidence of its effectiveness in producing learning. Second, each school system should publish annually the results of systematic public assessment of pupil achievement in learning. Third, each teacher should submit evidence periodically of the learning achievements of pupils in his classes (Ebel, 1982, p.357).

Mastery learning was a contemporary of the "back to basics" movement. Mastery learning was a prescription to reduce the variability that existed in the prescribed, taught, and tested curriculum. Mastery learning, with its emphasis on clearly defined content and objectives for instruction, sufficient time for student mastery, and the use of criterion-reference formative and summative testing procedures, lends itself quite effectively to the reduction of variance among the three curricula (Mathews, 1983, p.248).

On August 26, 1981, an eighteen-member national committee was appointed by Secretary of Education Terel Bell because our "national education was at risk." After eighteen months the National Commission on Excellence in Education published its final report. The five major recommendations of the commission promised lasting reform. The first, "Recommendation A", covered content and recommended that the state and local high school graduation requirements be strengthened and that, at a minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to lay the foundations in the "New Basics" by taking in high school four years of English, three years of mathematics, science, social studies and one-half year of computer science (National Commission on Excellence in Education, Nation at Risk, 1983, p.24). The "New Basics" are the foundation of a core of the modern curriculum (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.24). The Commission based its conclusions on the belief that secondary school curriculum had been homogenized, diluted and diffused to such an extent that it no longer had a central purpose (Goldberg and Harvey, 1983). Today they said, U.S. high schools offer a "cafeteria-style" curriculum in which the appetizers and desserts can easily be mistaken for the main course (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.18). According to the commission, high school social studies should be designed to enable students to fix theirplace and possibilities within the larger socialand cultural structure; understand the broad sweep of ancient and contemporary ideas that have shaped our world; understand the fundamentals of how our economic and political systems function; and grasp the difference between free and repressive societies. (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.25-26)

"Recommendation B", recommended that schools, colleges, and universities adopt more rigorous measurable standards, and heighten expectations for academic performance. Grades should be an indication of academic achievement and reliable (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p 27). The third recommendation was "time"; a significant increase in time should be devoted to learning the "New Basics" (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p 29). "Recommendation D" was concerned with teachers and their college preparation programs. And "Recommendation E" dealt with leadership of the administration and guidelines for their improvement. Also included in the last recommendation was improved fiscal support of the schools (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

With the need to know, a grant was provided by the National Science Foundation for Project SPAN to study the current state of the social studies in the United States. Project SPAN undertook the task of describing and assessing the past, current, and future of social studies education (Project SPAN, 1982, iii). The first publication of Project SPAN was a history of social studies reform from 1880 to 1980--a study of growth, communities and commissions, creativity, conservatism, hope, frustration, and numerous re-inventions of the wheel. This history contributed to the understanding of the current state of social studies, but was separate from SPAN's 300-page account of rationales, curriculum materials, instructional practices, and the status of social studies teachers (Morrisett, 1984, p.511).

The following were among the findings from ProjectSPAN:

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the social studies concerning what a rationale is, and constructing a rationale for the social studies is seldom attempted.

Recently, social studies educators have been concerned about developing a strict definition ofsocial studies without statements of desirable goals on recommended procedures.

Citizenship education is the most common single goal for social studies; the most common goal set is knowledge, skills, attitudes or values, and social participation (Revision of TheNCSS Curriculum Guidelines, 1979).

The dominant pattern of scope and sequence of social studies K through 12 is very similar to the one established more than 60 years ago. This pattern of U.S. history, world history, civics andgovernment has persisted due to the strength of tradition, reinforced by textbook content, and the lack of a compelling alternative.

Students, teachers, administrators, and thepublic accept and rely on curriculum matherials as the essential aids to teaching, learning, and classroom management. Foremost among curriculum materials are textbooks, which are used in great majority.

Most textbooks for particular subjects and grade levels are so much alike in format, style, and content. Some changes have occured in the last twenty years, such as the treatment of women, minorities, color graphics, controversial topics, and variety in learning activities.

The individual teacher is generally said to be the "key" in the learning process, but little is known why.

Unlike college level teachers, elementary and secondary teachers spend little time contemplating the goals of their activities, they are too busy with administration and management of their classroom.
Teachers teaching the same subject using the same textbook in the same system teach in diverse ways. And most instruction takes place in large groups. Most teachers time is spent on administrative duties and maintenance of discipline. Preparation time is inadequate and student's time on task in the classroom is substantially less than 100 percent. (Morrissett, 1984, p.511-512.)

Project SPAN investigated the past and the present status of social studies education. From this investigation, four views of what the future might hold for the social studies education were presented. First, social studies education literature was filled with accounts of reforms that failed. Each reform had rediscovered the previous movement and added little on its own. The one notable success of an educational reform is the 1916 National Education Association's Commission on the Social Studies. Thus SPAN's first view of the future was the past will prevail. A good case, therefore, can be made that the best prediction of where education will be next year, five years, and possibly ten, twenty, or fifty-years from now is that it will be about the same as it is now (Morrissett, 1984).

The second view of the future by SPAN was that education will move slowly but surely-and maybe not so slowly-toward agreed upon ideas (Morrissett, 1984, p.512). Change is possible and often welcomed as progress, such as sexual equity, minority rights, and new methods of education.

The third future view of SPAN dealt with one of the new methods of social studies, the "new social studies." According to SPAN, the "new social studies" reform movement of the 1960's and the 1970's may not be dead, but only sleeping. While many may feel that the innovations of the "new social studies" are safely, permanently (and possibly deservedly) buried, another view holds that a tremendous legacy of new ideas for teaching mehtods and learning materials was accumulated and stored away in the 1960's and 1970's (Morrissett, 1984, p.519).

The last such view presented for the future of social studies education was a revolution needs a strong catalyst, and computers may be such a catalyst. Any one of the future views could occur by itself, independently, or all could go together forward for education, which could be exciting.

In November of 1983, a task force for the National Council for the Social Studies on scope and sequence published their report, "In Search of a Scope and Sequence for Social Studies." The task force with the knowledge that two of the latest curriculum publications of the NCSS ("Social Studies Curriculum Guidelines," 1971, 1979; and "Essentials of the Social Studies," 1981) did not explicitly define social studies, but the intended meaning could be understood through the rationale and statement of goals (NCSS, "In Search of a Scope Sequence fo the Social Studies," 1984, p.251). So with the above mentioned documents plus "A Guide to Content in the Social Studies" (1957), "The Social Studies and National Interest" (1962), and "Social Studies in Transition: Guidelines for Change" (1965), the task force therefore wrote the following definitions:

Social studies is a basic subject of K-12 curriculum that (1) derives its goals from the nature of citizenship in a democratic society that is closely linked to other nations and peoples of the world; (2) draws its content primarily from history, the social sciences, and in some respects, from the humanities and sciences; and (3) its taught in ways that reflect an awareness of the personal, social, and cultural experiences and developmental levels of learners. (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984, p.251)

The task force, after giving a definition, went on to say that over the past several decades the professional consensus, approved by the board of directors of the NCSS, has been such that programs should include goals in three areas: knowledge, democratic values, and skills (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984. P.251). They felt that programs combining the ability to use knowledge and skills with the application of democratic values in real life through social particapation is an ideal balance for social studies (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984).

The knowledge base, reported by the task force, should provide facts, concepts, and generalizations so that students can understand human affairs and conditions. In today's technologically advanced world, the average citizen has an enormous need for knowledge in making informed decisions. Information and knowledge must be linked to the experiences encountered by students in their real life that occur both in and out of the classroom.

The areas of knowledge selected by the task force in the social studies were the following:

History-of the United States and the world; understanding of and learning to deal with change.

Geography-physical, political, cultural, economic; world-wide relationships.

Government-theories, systems, structures, processes.

Law-civil, criminal, Constitutional, international.

Economics-theories, systems, structures, processes.

Anthropology and Sociology-cultures, social institutions, the individual, the group, the community, the society.

Psychology-the individual in intergroup and interpersonal relationship.

Humanities-the literature, art, music, dance, and drama of cultures.

Science-the effects of natural and physical science on human ralationships. (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984, p.251)

The second category of goals from the task force was democratic values and beliefs. Along with democratic values and beliefs students should be presented with knowledge and beliefs set forth in the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution. Social studies should not indoctrinate students to accept these principles blindly, but rather present knowledge about their historical roots. These same values should be modeled by the teachers in the classroom and in the daily activities of their school. Democratic processes include due process, equal protection, and civic participation, and are rooted in such values as: Justice, Freedom, Equality, Diversity, Responsibility, Privacy, Rule of Law, and International Human Rights (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984, p.252).

R. Freeman Butts concurred in his reaction to "In Search of a Scope and Sequence in the Social Studies," stating "It thus reaffirms a long-held traditional purpose of social studies, but does so by explicit and persuasive attention to the common core of civic values and citizenship in a democratic society" (NCSS, "Reactions to In Search...," 1984, p.263).

The third category of the social studies goals was skill development. The ability to do something repeatedly with proficiency was given as the definition of a skill. Students able to link knowledge with processing beliefs, thus leading to action and problem-solving, were considered essential skills in citizenship participation (NCSS, In Search...," 1984). The task force then listed the key skills essential for social studies K through 12.

The task force recommended a holistic-interactive curriculum approach to the selection and placement of content. The content at any grade level should be presented, insofar as possible, in a comprehensive view of a complex whole (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984). Everything relates to everything else, and because of this it casts events into their broadest social context, or holistic-interactive. The task force then constructed the scope of social studies K through 12 with four optional sequences for grade 6 through 12. All of the options included American history at grade level 11, a systematic study of all major cultures of the world, and a semester of economics, and law-related studies (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984, p.256).

As the title suggests the task force was "In Search" of scope and sequence for social studies. Reactions to the document were mixed, but it definitely could assist state and local school districts in rethinking their social studies curriculum. This document also raised some questions concerning the placement of U.S. history at the eighth grade, which originally was done when most students finished school at the end of the eighth grade. Since this is no longer the case, the need for this subject at this level needs to be examined (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984, p.262). Another challenge is to find ways to teach tenth grade world history or world cultures where most Americans can find their heritage within the context of global world history (NCSS, "In Search...," 1984).

The 1986 November/December issue of Social Education was almost totally devoted to the scope and sequences alternatives for the social studies. These came in response to the NCSS task force's report "In Search of a Scope and Sequence for Social Studies" in the November 1983, issue. The alternatives proposed in five of these articles follow: Mathew Downey in his article "Time, Space, and Culture," states that the major purpose of social studies is to help young people understand themselves, society, and their world so they can become responsible citizens. Downey's scope and sequence is chronologically organized which places history and geography at the center--time and space. Geography is concerned with spatial context in which historical developments take place. History helps students acquire a sense of historical time. Geography gives them an understanding of place. Time and place are fundamental dimensions in which human cultures evolve and human beings interact. Downey's proposed scope and sequence provides for an "integrated social science and humanities curriculum" (Downey, 1986, p.491).

Curriculum based upon major themes was the concept of H. Michael Hartoonian and Margaret Laughlin in their article "Designing a Scope and Sequence." The themes were to run through each grade K through 12. The themes are: Cultural Heritage, Global Perspective, Political/Economic, Tradition and Change, Social History, Spatial Relationship, and Social Contracts (Hartoonian, Laughlin, 1986, p.504). Hartoonian and Laughlin's flow chart for an integrated skills network for thinking and reasoning contained the same items stated by the Task Force in 1984, knowledge, skills, and values. According to Hartoonian and Laughlin, the purpose of scope and sequence design is "to serve as a grammar or metalanguage that professionals can use to talk about their craft" (Hartoonian, Laughlin, 1986, p.512).

Engle and Ochoa in their article see the key to curriculum purporting "to prepare citizens of a democracy in its capacity to encourage young citizens to think about and make considered decisions" not for memorization, but problem solving (Engle, Ochoa, 1986, p.514). They see the ultimate goal of the social studies as to improve the ability of young citizens, i.e. students, to make intelligent and socially responsible decisions (Engle, Ochoa, 1986). The way to resolve problems is problem-solving. Engle and Ochoa's article suggested the following strands be developed in their curriculum; environmental studies, cultural studies, social problems, special problems in citizenship, citizen internship, electives, and the hidden curriculum (Engle, Ochoa, 1986 p.516). The hidden curriculum deals with student willingness to govern themselves in school and participate in their own school rules.

William Stanley and Jack Nelson have proposed a social education curriculum rationale as "a democratic civic culture, and the active participation of individuals in the continuing improvement of society" (Stanley, Nelson, 1986, p.528). Their major theme is that social education should be citizenship education. Their alternative scope and sequence is theme orientated and can be attached to any curriculum. Stanley and Nelson listed four themes primary grades K-3, self-identity and a concern for others, leading to development of the concept of interdependence; grades 4-6, observation and ideas; grades 7-9, testing ideas, refining ethical ideology; grade 10-12, refining critical thinking, proposals for change, and social participation (Stanley, Nelson, 1986, p.532-533). These educational experiences should emancipate and empower students to develop "critical, technical, and practical competences necessary to participate in a democratic society" (Stanley, Nelson, 1986, p.533).

The Association of American Geography in the early 1900's took no action in designing its geography curriculum, but many of its members wrote on how to incorporate geography into the existing curriculum. The 1916 curriculum scope and sequence placed geography at the seventh grade level. Willard Kniep has reinvented the wheel by trying to infuse geography into the existing scope and sequence curriculum to educate students as global citizens for a global society (Kniep, 1986). Kniep is attempting to incorporate citizenship education and geography to enlarge the mission of citizenship education calling for a global citizen.