In 2007 the Michigan Department of Education (MDOE) unveiled Social Studies Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs) that went into implementation during the 2008–2009 academic year. The purpose of this research was to examine social studies teaching in grades K-8 and what effects, if any, the GLCEs had on the curriculum in these grades. Participating teachers responded to a series of questions regarding their teaching of socials studies including how many years they have been teaching, how much time is spent teaching social studies, and how integrated the social studies curriculum was with other subject areas as well as questions that related specifically to how the GLCEs have altered their curriculum and teaching. Results indicate that the implementation of the GLCEs has caused moderate to major changes in the social studies curriculum and that the state social studies proficiency test is not a main factor in what influences the character of the social studies curriculum or what is taught in the curriculum. While these results mirror the existing literature regarding time spent teaching socials studies compared with other subjects, social studies instruction has gained instructional time in recent years.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsL.M., PedullaJ.J., and MadausG.F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42, 18-29.
2.
AllemanJ. and BrophyJ.. (1993). Is curriculum integration a boon or a threat to social studies?Social Education, 57, 287-91.
3.
BaileyG., ShawE.L.Jr., and HollifieldD.. (2006). The devaluation of social studies in the elementary grades. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30, 18-29.
4.
BoehmR., and BednarzS.. (1994). Geography for Life: National Geography Standards, 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Geographic Education.
5.
BurroughsS., GroceE. and WebeckM.L.. (2005). Social studies education in the age of testing and accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 13-20.
6.
Center for Education Policy (CEP). (1996-2009). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved February 2, 2010 from http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/CEP-NCLB-Report-4.pdf
7.
DiemR. (1996). Using social studies as the catalyst for curriculum integration. Social Education, 60, 95-98.
8.
DudleyM. (1997). The rise and fall of a statewide assessment system. English Journal, 86, 15-20.
9.
DuplassJ.A. (2007). Elementary social studies: Trite, disjointed, and in need of reform?The Social Studies, 98, 137-144.
10.
FirestoneW.A., MayrowetzD., and FairmanJ.. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
11.
HeafnerT.L, LipscombG.B., and RockT.C.. (2006). To test or not to test? The role of testing in elementary social studies. Social Studies Research and Practice, 1, 145-164.
12.
HindeE. R. (2005). Revisiting curriculum integration: A fresh look at an old idea. The Social Studies, 96, 105-111.
13.
HoffmanJ.V., AssafL. C., and ParisS. G.. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow?The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-492.
14.
JonesG., JonesB., HardinB., ChapmanL., YarbroughT., and DavisM.. (1999). The impacts of high stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.
15.
KoretzD., BarronS., MitchellK. and StecherB.. (1996a). The perceived effects of the Kentucky instructional results information system (KIRIS) (MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
16.
KoretzD., MitchellK., BarronS. and KeithS.. (1996b). The perceived effects of the Maryland school performance assessment program (CSE Technical Report No. 409). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
17.
LemingJ.S., EllingtonL., and SchugM.. (2007). The state of social studies: A national random survey of elementary and middle school social studies teachers. Social Education, 70, 322-327.
18.
LintnerT. (2006). Social studies (still) on the back burner: Perceptions and practices of K-5 social studies instruction. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30, 455-483.
19.
LonningR.A., DeFrancoT.C, and WeinlandT.P.. (1998). Development of theme-based, interdisciplinary, integrated curriculum: A theoretical model. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 312-318.
20.
ManzoK.K. (2005). Social studies losing out to reading, math. Education Week, 24, 1, 16-17.
21.
McMillanJ.H., MyranS., and WorkmanD.. (1999). The impact of mandated statewide testing on teachers classroom assessment and instructional practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 431041).
22.
Michigan Board of Education. (1996). Michigan curriculum framework. Lansing, MI: Department of Education, State of Michigan. Retrieved June 25, 2007 from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MichiganCurriculumFramework_817_2_7.pdf
23.
Michigan Board of Education. (2001-2007). Design and validity of the MEAP test. Lansing, MI: Department of Education, State of Michigan. Retrieved June 25, 2007 from: http://www.michigan.gOv/mde/0,1607,7-140-22709_31168-94522--,00.html
24.
O ConnorK.A, HeafnerT. and GroceE.. (2007). Advocating for social studies: Documenting the decline and doing something about it. Social Education, 71, 255-261.
25.
PasseJ. (2006). The heart of the curriculum. Together we need to stop the marginalization of the social studies. Social Education, 70, 6-8.
26.
PedersonP.V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on nonassessed subjects. The Clearing House, 80, 287-291.
27.
RockT.C., HeafnerT, O ConnorK, PasseJ., OldendorfS, GoodA., and ByrdS.. (2006). One state closer to a national crisis: A report on elementary social studies education in North Carolina schools. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34, 455-483.
28.
RothmanR. (2005). Is history…history?Harvard Education Letter, 26, 1-3.
29.
SchugM.C., and CrossB.. (1998). The dark side of curriculum integration in social studies. The Social Studies, 89, 54-56.
30.
SmithM.L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Research, June-July, 8-11.
31.
SmithM.L., EdelskyC., DraperK., RottenbergS. and CherlandM.. (1989). The role of testing in elementary schools. Los Angeles: Center for Research on Educational Standards and Student Tests, Graduate School of Education, UCLA.
32.
ThorntonS.J. (2001). Educating the educators: Rethinking subject matter and methods. Theory Into Practice, 40, 72-79.
33.
VanFossenP.J. (2005). Reading and math take so much of the time…An overview of social studies instruction in elementary classrooms in Indiana. Theory and Research in Social Education, 33, 376-403.
34.
VoglerK.E, LinternT., LipscombG.B, KnopfH., HeafnerT.L., and RockT.C.. (2007). Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program. Journal of Social Studies Research, 31, 20-34.
35.
von ZastrowC. and JancH. (2004). Academic Atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America’s public schools. Council for Basic Education, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
