Fact or Fiction: Is Social Studies “History” in North Carolina’s Elementary Schools?

Abstract

Elementary students in North Carolina are not required to take social studies standardized tests. As a result, assumptions about social studies instruction have emerged. The assumptions represent perceptions or misperceptions about whether the subject is being taught, whether it is valued, and whether there are pressures to ignore social studies to focus on tested subjects. Data from a multi-university, longitudinal study examining the state of social studies in elementary grades are highlighted. Selected findings from the statewide research provide a framework for considering the assumptions. Recommendations suggest a team approach to advocating for the social studies.

Where is the Content?: Elementary Social Studies in Preservice Field Experiences

“…Findings of this study echo those of previous studies examining the frequency of social studies instruction (see Fitchett and Heafner (2010) and Heafner et al (2007)) in that social studies instruction was rarely, if ever, observed over the course of the semester by PSTs. In fact, 67% of participants reported seeing only two or fewer lessons related to social studies education, with 28.6% of participants stating that they had not seen a single social studies lesson (see Fig.…”

“…When I asked the teacher about the lack of social studies, she said they tried to integrate it in their reading." The integration of social studies content in literacy instruction occurred frequently for participants, indicative of a larger trend documented in the research (Boyle-Baise et al, 2011;Heafner et al, 2007;Evers Holloway & Chiodo, 2009). The most common frustration expressed by participants across semesters was that their observations frequently included lessons related to English language arts and math.…”

“…Interestingly, the teachers in the study conducted by Winstead-Fry (2009) were given specific professional development to develop integrated lesson plans that honor all subject areas involved, unlike participants in studies that shared more negative perceptions of integration. One study (Heafner et al, 2007) evidenced that integration was often utilized in combination with standalone social studies instruction (67% of the time), with only 28.3% of teachers indicating that integration was the only method of social studies instruction implemented. Conversely, Boyle-Baise, Hsu, Johnson, Serriere, and Stewart (2011) suggested that integration was often impromptu occurring through unintended conversations often initiated by the students themselves, and not the calculated work of the teacher.…”

“…Fitchett and Heafner (2010) found a substantial difference in instructional time devoted to social studies when compared with other content areas: 2.9 h/week for social studies, while 11 h/week devoted to language arts and 5 h/week dedicated to mathematics. Heafner et al (2007) discovered that only 33.8% of teachers taught social studies at least 2-3 days per week. Teachers frequently rotated social studies instruction with science content, another subject area that is not included on standardized testing at the elementary level (Heafner et al, 2007).…”

“…Heafner et al (2007) discovered that only 33.8% of teachers taught social studies at least 2-3 days per week. Teachers frequently rotated social studies instruction with science content, another subject area that is not included on standardized testing at the elementary level (Heafner et al, 2007). Results from a direct comparison between a state that does not conduct standardized testing in elementary social studies (North Carolina) and a state that does (South Carolina) indicated social studies is taught less and for less time in the non-tested state (Heafner, Lipscomb, & Rock, 2006).…”