Social Studies and the Birth of NCSS: 1783-1921

By Ben A. Smith, J. Jesse Palmer, Stephen T. Correia

The year 1783 marked the end of the American Revolution and set this country on a path as the "United" States of America. The majority of Americans at this time were uneducated. The home, job, and church all played a greater role in education than did the schools (Barr, Barth, and Shermis 1977). The citizens of the United States would need, however, to be educated in the values and responsibilities necessary for national cohesion and survival. According to Cremin (1980),

The goal was nothing less than a new republican individual, of virtuous character, abiding patriotism, and prudent wisdom, fashioned by education into an independent yet loyal citizen. ... Only as Americans could awaken and nurture a corresponding independence of manners and opinion would the Revolution be completed and a proper foundation for the Republic established. The task of erecting and maintaining that foundation became the task of American education. (5)

As this country began its experiment with self-government, the seeds for what we call "social studies" were planted to ensure the survival of the nation. Benjamin Franklin and other influential citizens saw the need for an educational system that would develop in students a sense of patriotism and nationalistic values. They encouraged instruction that would promote "moral training, training for citizenship, the judgement, and the imagination" (Hooper and Smith 1993, 14).

Some of the great minds of the early nineteenth century viewed the subjects that would become part of the "social studies" as a critical part of education. Thomas Jefferson's thinking influenced educational thought for years. As Chairman of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia, Jefferson reported in 1818 that history and geography were important subjects for a primary education (Cremin 1980, 110). He also believed that these subjects, with political economy and the law of nature and nations, were essential to achieve the goal of a higher education. Benjamin Rush, another signatory of the Declaration of Independence, saw the need for education to develop good citizens. He thought young men and women should study history, geography, and political economy. And John Adams, when asked by Jefferson about subjects of practical value, included geography, history, and chronology as courses of "real value in human affairs" (Cremin 1980, 249).

The Emergence of Social Education
Saxe (1991) contends that the social studies "had its own set of unique beginnings" and did not originate, as many writers argue, "with the examination of the development of history as a field of study in the nineteenth century and its extension into the twentieth century" (1). He asserts that the "foundations" of social studies originated in Great Britain during the 1820s and quickly moved to the United States (3). Social studies emerged as an attempt to use education as a vehicle to promote social welfare, and its subsequent development was influenced both by Americans and others.
When examining the inception of social education in this country, the textbooks of the time are one of the best resources (Hooper and Smith 1993; Smith and Vining 1990). According to Jarolimek (1981), history, geography, and civics were the dominant social science courses found in the early American elementary and secondary curricula. It seems appropriate to examine these types of texts for clues about the content of the early social sciences, the precursor of social studies.

Textbook Influence on Social Education
According to Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1977), textbooks before 1880 emphasized "moral and patriotic values through historical myths, moral parables, and even religious stories" (18).
Geography textbooks were some of the earliest to appear in classrooms. Brown (1941) identified Jedidiah Morse as the "father of American geography" and the first American geographer to write for an American audience. Morse's Elements of Geography (1784) presented the geography of the United States in some detail. Published in the north, this geography was considered by southerners, according to Davis (1981), "to denigrate Southern places, people, and customs" (22). Used primarily for elementary type schools, the textbook included a history of countries and states while a 1788 edition added a history of the United States after the Revolution. Most geography taught in elementary schools between 1784 and 1830 also included a study of history. In addition to Morse's text, for example, J. A. Cummings's An Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography (1813) integrated history and geography (Tryon 1935).

During the earliest period of U.S. nationhood, the subject of history did not exist as a separate course in the secondary or elementary grades and was generally taught as part of reading, geography, or the classics. Noah Webster was the first writer to include history as part of a reader. In 1785, the third part of Webster's A Grammatical Institute of English Language was published. Its title was "An American Selection of Lessons in Reading and Speaking, Calculated to Improve the Mind and Refine the Taste of Youth, and Also to Interest Them in Geography, History, and Politics of the United States." Later editions of his works included a history of the settlement of the United States and more geography. Other writers followed Webster's example, and historical material began to appear in more and more readers (Tryon 1935).

Webster's readers were also influential in exposing students to history in the elementary grades. One example was Webster's The Little Reader's Assistant. This beginner's reader was designed to stimulate children's curiosity in the history of the country (Tryon 1935).

History was not widely granted an autonomous place in the schools until after the 1830s. Before that time, however, it was found in some of the private schools and academies. John McCulloch, a Philadelphia printer, compiled a U.S. history book for lower grades in 1787. This was the first textbook in American history. By 1801, six history textbooks had been published in the United States (Tryon 1935; Wesley 1937; Cremin 1980; Hooper and Smith 1993). In 1827, Massachusetts required the study of U.S. history in secondary schools located in towns of five hundred families or more, and general history was required in schools where the town's population exceeded four thousand inhabitants (Cremin 1980). Actions like these spurred the production of history textbooks.

Between 1801 and 1860, there were 351 textbooks in history published or used in the United States. Most of these were general histories (109), followed by U.S. histories (105), ancient histories (77), English histories (28), and others (32). Prominent authors included Salma Hale, Jesse Olney, Emma Willard, C. A. Goodrich, A. F. Tytler, Samuel Whelpley, Samuel Griswold Goodrich (Peter Parley), Royal Robbins, Marcius Willson, J. E. Worcester, William Sullivan, and others. Most of the content of these texts was military, political, or social and economic, in that order (Tryon 1935). The Tales of Peter Parley about America (Goodrich 1827) were one example of an American history written for young children.

In the thirty years prior to the Civil War, history became an independent subject offered in most schools in the upper grades; it still did not hold the rank of subjects like arithmetic and geography. Five states (Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Virginia) passed legislation requiring the teaching of history in the schools before 1860 (Tryon 1935).

One prolific writer of early textbooks was Samuel Goodrich (Peter Parley), whose history and geography textbooks captured a large portion of the market during the 1830s. Goodrich published more than 160 books, many of which pertained to history and the social sciences (Palmer, Davis, and Smith 1991; Smith and Vining 1991). These early history and geography textbooks, all published in the north, promoted white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant values. Slavery was criticized, but blacks were characterized as inferior to whites (Cremin 1980).

Between 1821 and 1851, the geography textbooks of William Channing Woodbridge were also popular in the United States. In New York state alone in 1831, Woodbridge's geographies were being used in 412 towns. He is known to have collaborated with Emma Willard, one of the first American females to publish a geography text, Ancient Geography, as Connected with Chronology, and Preparatory to the Study of Ancient History (1822; Walters 1993; Nelson 1987). Another prominent female author, characterized by Vining and Smith (1994) as being among the "first generation of American geographers," was Susanna Rowson. She published her first geography book, An Abridgement of Universal Geography, in 1805. The book used information published in the works of Morse and various English writers, but she modified it, making it more usable with young students. Later, S. S. Cornell (1854) was another prominent author of geography books, perhaps using her initials rather than her given name to conceal her gender.

Saxe (1991) argues that the work of many of the above-mentioned writers did not have a major influence on the origins of social studies as we understand it.

Finally, the third branch, as exemplified by individuals like Noah Webster, Emma Willard, and Peter Parley (Samuel G. Goodrich), . . . although related to both traditional history and social studies curricula in spirit and intent, can claim no direct lineage to the genesis or development of the 1913-1916 Social Studies. (2)
The present authors contend, however, that textbooks and those who author them have almost always been major factors in the social studies and account for the largest amount of instructional materials used by teachers. Therefore, the most prolific authors of earlier historic periods certainly had an impact on shaping what was to become the social studies.

History and the Social Sciences
Social education at the turn of the century was dominated by historians. The then emerging social sciences of sociology, political science, and economics were still establishing themselves in colleges and universities, and were not able to obtain a secure place in high school classrooms. The founding of the American Historical Association (AHA) in 1884 by university-trained historians marked the establishment of a professional organization that would allow historians to exert influence over the school curriculum (Hertzberg 1989; Barr, Barth, and Shermis 1977). As noted by Keels (1980), "In the years between 1890 and 1911, it was a given that the historians [through the American Historical Association] were the appropriate authority for making recommendations concerning the social studies..." (106).
Historians encouraged the initial social studies curriculum reform effort in 1892 at the Madison Conference in the subcommittee on "History, Civil Government and Political Economy." Historians also formed the AHA Committees of Seven (1899), Five (1905), and Eight (1907) to endorse a history-dominated curriculum. Of these committees, NEA's Committee on History, Civil Government and Political Economy and AHA's Committee of Seven were the more influential for the early social studies curriculum (Cruikshank 1957; Hertzberg 1989; Jenness 1990; Nelson 1992; Saxe 1991; Tryon 1935; Wesley 1950; Whelan 1991).

Despite the domination of history during the early years of the twentieth century, social scientists wanting to further the interests of their respective disciplines began to form new professional organizations. The founding of the American Political Science Association (APSA) occurred in 1903. The American Sociology Association was created in 1905 (Barr, Barth, and Shermis 1977). Free from control of the historians, these social scientists viewed the school curriculum as fertile ground for their respective disciplines.

Social scientists found history unable to provide the answers to the complex and difficult problems facing twentieth-century America. The social sciences were increasingly viewed as a vehicle for studying and proposing solutions to the problems resulting from a dynamic and evolving American landscape. With increasing immigration, and the growth of industrialization and urbanization, American society was understood to be experiencing rapid and unprecedented change (Hofstadter 1955; Ross 1991). Through the social sciences, students of social studies would focus on first understanding, and then improving a rapidly changing, contemporary American society. It was social studies, its advocates argued, that would properly educate democratic citizens to live in their present world.

Cruikshank (1957) summarized the social studies curriculum of 1893 to 1915 as one where the subject matter in secondary social studies became stabilized, with the content being determined mostly by historians. "Government" became "Civics," a more practical course. Geography was taught either as part of history or mostly as physical geography. Economics appeared to be well established in the curriculum. Sociology had been introduced by 1911, but was rarely found in schools.

The Emergence of the Social Studies
According to Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1977), the social studies was nurtured by the works of John Dewey and promoted by such prominent educators such as George Counts, Edgar Wesley, Harold Rugg, and Earle Rugg. Wesley (1937), sometimes referred to as "the father of the social studies," noted that the following represent significant steps in the development of the social studies:
1892 Madison Conference on the teaching of history, government, and economics
1893 B. A. Hinsdale's How to Study and Teach History
1897 William H. Mace's Method in History
1897 Founding of the Journal of School Geography [whose name was changed to the Journal of Geography in 1902. It subsequently became the official publication of the National?Council for Geographic Education, which was established in 1915.]
1899 Publication of the Report of the Committee of Seven of the American Historical Association
1902 H. E. Bournes's The Teaching of History and Civics
1909 Founding of the History Teacher's Magazine (which became the Historical Outlook in 1918 and The Social Studies in 1934)
1909 Report of the Committee of Eight of the American Historical Association on history in the elementary schools
1911 Report of the Committee of Five of the American Historical Association on history in secondary schools
1914 Organization of the National Council of Geography Teachers
1915 Community Civics, Bulletin 23 of the Bureau of Education
1915 Henry Johnson's Teaching of History in Elementary and Secondary Schools
1916 Report of the Committee of the American Political Science Association on the teaching of government
1916 Report of the Social Studies Committee of the National Education Association, Bulletin 28 of the Bureau of Education
1921 R. M. Tryon's The Teaching of History in Junior and Senior High Schools
1921 Organization of the National Council for the Social Studies. (7-8)
The coming revolution in the social studies curriculum was foreshadowed in 1915 by the observations of a historian, Teachers College professor Henry Johnson. Johnson, perhaps the first critic of social studies, argued that if the type of history instruction advanced by advocates of social studies was implemented, no true historical study could result. Johnson held the view that proper historical inquiry had merits of its own, and found great fault in any study of history conditioned by present interests and concerns (Johnson 1915).

Just such present needs, however, were to be the guiding principles for the emerging social studies curriculum. History would not be removed from the curriculum. Rather, the type of history instruction found acceptable to the "new insurgents" (Saxe 1991) in favor of social studies curriculum reform was the "new history" of James Harvey Robinson. In large part because of its emphasis on the present, this type of history instruction dovetailed nicely into the curriculum reform espoused by social scientists gaining influence over the social studies curriculum.

Robinson (1912) held that history had to be studied to increase understanding of the present. If history did not do this, Robinson argued, it was failing to contribute to the improvement of society. Many historians balked at Robinson's utilitarian vision of history, as they understood their field to be a more scholarly and scientific study of the past.

It was the advocates of the social studies, forwarding a vision of history advocated by Robinson, who stepped forward to bridge the gap between the academic study of the past and the modern concern for the production of good citizens. These social studies advocates recommended that schools concern themselves exclusively with the production of democratic citizens. Adopting the curriculum ideas of educational reformers such as Arthur W. Dunn, the emerging social studies curriculum sought to actively engage students in an examination of their surrounding political, economic, and social world. By studying contemporary problems and issues of society, these social studies advocates argued, students would be better able to function in and contribute to the improvement of society.

Wesley (1937) wrote that economics, sociology, and civics were called "social studies" as early as 1905. He was probably referring to the earliest curriculum specifically labeled as "Social Studies" and intended for citizenship education, "The Social Studies in the Hampton Curriculum." This curriculum, taught at the Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in Hampton, Virginia, (also known as the alma mater of Booker T. Washington) was created in 1905 by a Columbia University educated sociologist, Thomas Jesse Jones (Jones 1906). The school was originally founded to educate the freed people of the south at the close of the American Civil War.

Although controversial because its emphasis was on social control, Jones's social studies curriculum was groundbreaking in its unique combination of sociology, political science, and economics. The aim of this effort was to present to Hampton's students, primarily African Americans and Native Americans, a series of individual social studies. It would be the cumulative effect of these individual social studies, according to Jones (1906), that would result in the Hampton student's gaining a model of proper behavior, resulting in the education of a good citizen.

The Committee on Social Studies
Led by increasing calls to make the secondary school curriculum more relevant to everyday life, and to free the high school curriculum from domination by university entrance requirements, the National Education Association (NEA) undertook the task of reorganization and reorientation of secondary education. To this end, with Clarence Kingsley as chairman, work began in 1911 to form the Commission for the Reorganization of Secondary Education (CRSE) that was officially chartered on July 13, 1913. It was a subcommittee of CRSE, the Committee on Social Studies, that first brought the social studies onto the national stage with its recommendations in 1916. The Committee on Social Studies was, according to historian Edward Krug (1964), "one of the most successful efforts of the entire CRSE" (355).
With Thomas Jesse Jones, a former classmate and colleague of Kingsley's at the U.S. Bureau of Education, at the helm, the committee's name was changed from the Committee on Social Science to the Committee on Social Studies. This change was significant because social studies rather than social science was seen as the vehicle by which students would be exposed to social education. Jones, as exemplified in his Hampton social studies curriculum, understood social studies to be intended to produce a student inculcated with socially acceptable behaviors and values (Correia 1993).

Jones wrote in the Preliminary Statement of the Committee on Social Studies "that the high-school teachers of social studies have the best opportunity ever offered to any social group to improve the citizenship of the land" (1913, 16). Good citizenship, Jones contended, was to be the purpose of social studies. Jones continued, "Facts, conditions, theories and activities that do not contribute rather directly to an understanding of the methods of human betterment have no claim for inclusion in the social studies" (17).

While history would hold a prominent place in the committee's recommendations, the capstone course of the social studies curriculum was to be the senior year "Problems of Democracy" course. As H. Wells Singleton notes, while historians balked at "the adoption of the problems of democracy course, the sociologists and political scientists moved quickly to endorse the offering" (1980, 93). The "Problems of Democracy" course was one of the truly unique offerings forwarded by the Committee on Social Studies. Embodying in a single course the spirit of the entire report, this offering made the better understanding and study of present society the focus of an entire year of study. All the social sciences and history were to participate in this attempt at a better understanding and improvement of the present.

When analyzing the impact of the Committee on Social Studies, Wesley (1950) noted that the committee

gave currency and respectability to the phrase "social studies." It went far toward destroying the notion that school subjects must faithfully and fully reflect the scholarly bodies of materials from which they are drawn. It did much to popularize the needs of pupils and to emphasize the desirability of providing for pupil growth rather than of merely storing information for the future. (85)

 

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS)The leaders of the social studies who shepherded its emergence onto the national scene, such as Thomas Jesse Jones, Arthur W. Dunn, James Harvey Robinson, and Clarence Kingsley, did not play any substantive role in the eventual formation of NCSS. Leadership in social studies passed from those who introduced it to those who would champion its acceptance in America's schools. These new social studies leaders, described as "educationists," were professional university-level educators, and not full-time social scientists or historians (Keels 1980). No longer would social studies be led by those not exclusively within education. The era when subject-matter specialists dictated the social studies curriculum was over. Social studies professionals would continue to consult actively with these subject-matter specialists, but the stranglehold of the latter on the social studies curriculum had ended by 1920 (Keels 1980).
AHA helped create NCSS in 1921, and supported it during its early years until its break in 1935. Murra noted (1970) that there were multiple "Founding Fathers" of NCSS: J. Montgomery Gambrill, Daniel C. Knowlton, Harold Rugg, Earle Rugg, and Roy Hatch. All were professors except Earle Rugg, who was a graduate student. However, Earle, the younger brother of Harold Rugg, deserves "a special niche among the Founding Fathers of the National Council for the Social Studies" (729). Although others were involved in the creation of NCSS, Earle's signature appears on the letters of November 11, 1920, and February 10, 1921, sent from Columbia University Teacher's College, which led to the official founding of NCSS in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on March 3, 1921.

 

Wesley (1937) described the NCSS relation with AHA as follows:

For years following the organization of the Council in 1921, it met at the back door of the American Historical Association and was regarded and treated as a poor relative. ... The typical historian was indifferent, condescending, or scornful of the Council. ("Social Education Asks" 1970, 802)
This relationship, according to Wesley, was the reason that he, as President of NCSS in 1935, gave "the Council freedom to become a social studies organization instead of a pseudo-historical society" (802).

The first President of NCSS was Albert McKinley, editor of a teaching journal called The Historical Outlook.

According to Jenness (1990):

The early NCSS was an attempt, well understood as such, to further or at least prepare for the development of a federation of subject matters; certainly it signaled the rejection of a view that history teachers in the schools could "handle" all other discipline-derived content. The NCSS was also oriented toward teachers and their support, intellectual and moral, at all levels. (99)

The Council still accepted history and civics as a central part of the social studies and did not want people to think that history was to be abandoned. However, "they favored 'the social studies' because it meant a broader and richer definition of the field, which would include greater attention to the social sciences" (Hertzberg 1989, 91).

Concluding Remarks
Prior to the birth of NCSS, the renderings of scholars, the minutes and recommendations of learned societies, professional organizations, reports in journals, and textbooks offer information about the evolution of the content and methodology of the social studies as we know it. Historically, textbooks are the best evidence about what was actually taught because teachers have always let textbooks dictate the majority of content taught in school, and still do today. These sources reveal to us that social education early on promoted values, religion, nationalism, geography, history, and politics.
As educational organizations and historians began to establish national commissions and committees in the late 1800s, individual subjects were promoted, but there was a sympathetic ear to integrating the various social sciences with history as long as history was taught as a separate subject. Then, as the social scientists began to create their own national organizations and study committees to investigate the curriculum, the struggle for a place for each subject in the public school curriculum began to intensify.

Philosophically, scholars began to disagree about not only what should be taught but how it should be taught. Even though the content was being determined mostly by historians, they could not agree about the goals and purposes of history. Much of this discussion was going on during a progressive period in American history.

The progressive movement in America, with its goal of improving the American way of life by expanding democracy and attaining economic and social justice, influenced education and the curriculum. Progressive educators wanted to implant ideas obtained from research in the social sciences and psychology. Progressives were concerned that, because education was to be provided for all, the methods of teaching school and the meaning of education needed to be altered (Cremin 1964). Influenced in large part by John Dewey and other progressive educators, schools were increasingly called upon to educate "good citizens" and to contribute to the overall betterment of society.

The social studies did not just happen. Social studies evolved during the era under examination to include history and the social sciences, and a more integrated, relevant approach to teaching those subjects. As social studies began to find its way into the school curriculum, NCSS was formed to provide leadership and to give credibility to a subject that would be constantly challenged during the twentieth century.

References

American Historical Association. The Study of History in the Elementary Grades. Report of the Committee of Eight. New York: Scribners', 1990.

American Historical Association. The Study of History in Schools. Report of the AHA Committee of Seven. New York: Macmillan Co., 1899.

Barr, R. D., J. L. Barth, and S. S. Shermis. Defining the Social Studies. Bulletin 51. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1977.

Brown, R. "The American Geographies of Jedidiah Morse." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 31 (1941): 145-217.

Cornell, S. S. Cornell's Primary Geography, Forming Part First of a Systematic Series of School Geographies. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1854.

Correia, S. T. "For Their Own Good: An Historical Analysis of the Educational Thought of Thomas Jesse Jones." Ph.D. diss., Pennsylvania State University, 1993.

Cremin, L. A. American Education: The National Experience. New York: Harper and Row, 1980.

Cremin, L. A. The Transformation of the School. New York: Random House, Inc., 1964.

Cruikshank, A. "The Social Studies Curriculum in the Secondary School: 1893-1955." Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1957.

Cummings, J. A. An Introduction to Ancient and Modern Geography. Boston: Cummings and Hilliard, 1813.

Davis, O. L., Jr. "Understanding the History of the Social Studies." In The Social Studies: 80th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Howard D. Mehlinger and O. L. Davis, Jr. Chicago: NSSE, 1981.

Goodrich, S. G. The Tales of Peter Parley about America. Boston: S.G. Goodrich, 1827.

Hertzberg, H. "History and Progressivism: A Century of Reform Proposals." In Historical Literacy: The Case for History in American Education, edited by Paul Gagnon. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1989.

Hofstadter, R. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.

Hooper, J. H., and B. A. Smith. "Children's U.S. History Textbooks, 1787-1865." Social Education 57, no. 1 (1993): 14-18.

Jarolimek, J. "The Social Studies: An Overview." In The Social Studies: 80th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Howard Mehlinger and O. L. Davis, Jr. Chicago: NSSE, 1981.

Jenness, D. Making Sense of Social Studies. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1990.

Johnson, H. Teaching of History in Elementary and Secondary Schools. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915.

Jones, T. J. "The High School and Democracy." In the Journal of Proceedings and Addresses. The fifty-first annual meeting held at Salt Lake City, Utah, July 5-11, 1913. Ann Arbor, Mich.: NEA, 1913.

Jones, T. J. The Social Studies in the Hampton Curriculum. Hampton: Hampton Institute Press, 1906.

Keels, O. M. "The Collegiate Influence on the Early Social Studies Curriculum: A Reassessment of the Role of Historians." Theory and Research in Social Education 8, no. 3 (1980): 105-20.

Krug, E. A. The Shaping of the American High School. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

McCulloch, J. Introduction to the History of America. Philadelphia: Young and McCulloch, 1787.

Morse, J. Geography Made Easy; Being an Abridgment of the American Universal Geography, Containing Astronomical Geography ... Discovery and General Description of America ... General View of the United States ... Particular Accounts of the United States of America, and of all the Kingdoms, States, and Republicks in the Known World, in Regard to Their Boundaries, Extent, Rivers, Lakes, Mountains, Productions, Population, Character, Government, Trade, Manufactures, Curiosities, History, c. Boston: Thomas and Andrews, 1807.

Murra, W. F. "The Birth of the NCSS-As Remembered by Earle U. Rugg." Social Education 34 (November 1970): 728-29.

National Education Association. Report of the Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies. New York: American Book Co., 1894.

National Education Association. The Social Studies in Secondary Education. A Report of the Committee on Social Studies on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. Bulletin 28. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education, 1916.

Nelson, M. R. "Emma Willard: Pioneer in Social Studies Education." Theory and Research in Social Education 15, no. 4 (Fall 1987): 245-56.

Nelson, M. R. "First Efforts toward a National Curriculum: The Committee of Ten's Report on History, Civil Government and Political Economy." Theory and Research in Social Education 20, no. 3 (1992): 242-62.

Palmer, J. J., J. C. Davis, and B. A. Smith. "Why Was Peter Parley Popular? Lessons for Social Studies Textbook Authors." Journal of Social Studies Research 15, no. 1 (1991): 41-46.

Robinson, J. H. The New History. New York: Macmillan, 1912.Ross, D. The Origins of American Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Rugg, E. "How the Current Courses in History, Geography, and Civics Came to What They Are." In Social Studies in the Elementary and Secondary Schools, Part 2: The Twenty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Harold Rugg. Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Co., 1923.

Rugg, H. O. "A Unified Social Science Curriculum." The Historical Outlook 14 (October 1923): 394.

Saxe, D. Social Studies in Schools. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991.Singleton, H. Wells. "Problems of Democracy: The Revisionist Plan for Social Studies Education." Theory and Research in Social Education 8, no. 3 (1980): 89-104.

Smith, B. A., and J. W. Vining. "Influences on the American Geographer Samuel Griswold Goodrich." Journal of Social Studies Research 13, no. 2 (1989): 10-18.

Smith, B. A., and J. W. Vining. "Samuel Griswold Goodrich aka Peter Parley: Early American Geographer." Journal of Geography 90 (1991): 271-76."Social Education Asks-What was one of your most interesting or significant experiences during your year as President of the National Council for the Social Studies? Responses of Twenty Five Former Presidents of NCSS." Social Education 34 (November 1970): 802.

Thayer, C. M. First Lessons in the History of the United States; Compiled for the Use of the Junior Classes in Joseph Hoxie's Academy. New York: John F. Sibell, 1828.

Tryon, R. M. The Social Sciences as School Subjects, Part XI of the American Historical Association Report of the Commission on the Social Studies. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1935.

U.S. Bureau of Interior, Bureau of Education. Statement of Chairman of the Committee on Social Studies by Thomas Jesse Jones. In Preliminary Statements by Chairmen of Committees of the Commission of the National Education Association on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. Bulletin 41. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1913.

Vining, J.W. The National Council for Geographic Education:?The First Seventy-Five Years and Beyond. Indiana, PA: National Council for Geographic Education, 1990.

Vining, J. W., and B. A. Smith. "Susanna Rowson: Early American Geography Educator." Unpublished manuscript, 1995.

Walters, W. D. "William Channing Woodbridge: Geographer." Journal of Social Studies Research 16 and 17, no. 2 (1993): 42-47.

Webster, N. A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. 3 parts. Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1785.

Wesley, E. B. Teaching the Social Studies: Theory and Practice. New York: D.C. Heath and Co., 1937.

Wesley, E. B. Teaching Social Studies in High Schools. 3d ed. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1950.

Whelan, M. "James Harvey Robinson, the New History, and the 1916 Social Studies Report." The History Teacher 24, no. 2 (1991): 191-202.

Woodbridge, W.C., with E. Willard. A System of Universal Geography on the Principles of Comparison and Classification. Ancient Geography as Connected with Chronology and Preparatory to the Study of Ancient History: Accompanied with an Atlas. Hartford: John Beach, 1836.

 

Ben A. Smith is Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary Education and the Department of Geography at Kansas State University, Manhattan. J.
Jesse Palmer is Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. Stephen T. Correia is Assistant Professor of Education at Saint Norbert College, De Pere, Wisconsin.

The Early Years: 1921-1937

By Murry R. Nelson

The early years of National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) set the tone for its later development. Launched to bridge the gap between school teachers and the social sciences, NCSS was conceived by its early leaders as an organization that would provide an umbrella for educators in a variety of academic disciplines. It sought close ties with existing educational associations active in the various social scientific fields. A primary goal for early NCSS officials was to expand the membership as rapidly as possible and the new organization caught on with teachers soon after its establishment. While the early leaders manifested strong organizational talents, they were not able to establish NCSS as an organization with a powerful academic vision or distinct intellectual identity of its own, and NCSS often appeared directionless in the years following its creation.

The Early Years of NCSS

The first steps toward establishing NCSS were taken in 1920. Its organizational meeting was held at the Department of Superintendence meetings of the National Education Association in Atlantic City on March 3, 1921.

NCSS was inspired by the Northeastern Illinois Social Science Round Table developed by Earle Rugg, which met at the Chicago YMCA in 1919. Rugg was then a high school teacher in Oak Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, who contacted social scientists and teachers of history and social studies to form the nucleus of the round table. When Rugg went east in September 1920 to Teachers College as a graduate student to work with W. C. Bagley, he contacted some other "social studies professionals"-Daniel Knowlton, Harold Rugg (Earle's older brother), Roy Hatch, and J. Montgomery Gambrill-and the five decided to form a new group based on the ideas of the round table. This new organization was at first called the National Council of Teachers of Social Studies, but the name was soon changed to National Council for the Social Studies. Its stated purpose was "to bring about the association and cooperation of teachers of social studies (history, government, economics, sociology, etc.) and of administrators, supervisors, teachers of education and others interested in obtaining the maximum results in education for citizenship through social studies ("A National Council for the Social Studies" 1921, 144).

At the organizational meeting, the influence of historians was much in presence. As its first President, the group elected Albert McKinley, who was editor of The Historical Outlook and a member of the American Historical Association (AHA) Committee on History Teaching in the Schools. Rolla Tryon, an AHA stalwart on the University of Chicago faculty, was elected Vice-President, and Edgar Dawson of Hunter College was elected secretary-treasurer. Both had been members of earlier AHA Committees. Earle Rugg was named Assistant Secretary ("A National Council for the Social Studies" 1921).

According to Earle Rugg, "The eastern boys froze us out, Albert McKinley and Edgar Dawson" (Rugg 1966; Murra 1970). The meeting only laid the groundwork for a permanent institution; the actual shape of the Council would be determined largely by the newly elected executive committee. The president was "to appoint an Advisory Board of fifteen members" ("A National Council for the Social Studies" 1921, 144).

Almost immediately, NCSS began to be a player in the debate about the school curriculum. Boozer notes that "in 1921 ten ... committees representing these fields (e.g., history, civics, economics, and sociology) were busy at work making recommendations for the school curriculum. These committees and their predecessors had, in most cases, worked independently of each other" (Boozer 1960, 164). Thus, pressure was already growing to include all of these social sciences in the school curriculum. It was noted that the social studies needed much more attention and organization in schools: "... it is not certain that all have learned that the social studies constitute a group of subjects which must be viewed as a group and not as separate disciplines, wholly independent of each other. There still remains a tendency among the historians, economists, political scientists and sociologists to work too independently of each other" ("A National Council for the Social Studies" 1921, 144).

NCSS sought support and attracted representatives from a number of social science groups, particularly AHA. The secretaries of these organizations were urged "to assist by getting their members to join the Counciquot; (Rugg 1921, 190). Shortly thereafter, however, Dawson wrote that these organizations had "turned out to be a handicap in the development of these [social] studies." Advocates of each subject wanted to be sure it was adequately represented in the schools. In particular, "the historians feel that there is a danger of history being replaced by a patchwork collection of unrelated and unsystematic materiaquot; (Dawson 1921, 330).

At the AHA conference in St. Louis in 1921, it became clear that, though AHA was very supportive of NCSS, it was still a bit nervous, fearing the weakening of history in schools. The conference theme was "Desirable Adjustments Between History and the Other Social Studies in Elementary and Secondary Schools." This topic was discussed in the AHA Report of 1921 (AHA 1921, 121-24), and the lead paper of the conference, by R. M. Tryon, was published in The Historical Outlook of February 1922. AHA suggested that a joint Commission be formed to represent the interests of the various scholarly groups to be represented under the new umbrella of NCSS. The Joint Commission on the Presentation of Social Studies in Schools was subsequently formed through AHA. It had two specific tasks-to continue "the study of the presentation of social studies in secondary schools and to plan appropriate cooperation with other agencies working in the same field" (Report of the Joint Commission on the Presentation of Social Studies in the Schools 1923, 53).

The AHA Executive Council also made clear its approval of NCSS and "noted that the desired cooperation with other associations can best be obtained through a council, or joint body, embracing representatives of the organizations concerned" (AHA 1921, 59-60). Dawson observed that "this movement [toward a Commission] was stimulated by a conference which met in Pittsburgh at the call of Professor [L. C.] Marshall and which represented economists, sociologists, political scientists and schools of business." Those attending the conference had decided to support rather than replace the National Council (Dawson 1922c, 46). Making an important practical point, Dawson affirmed that a commission of scholars was insufficient without "representative school administrators and students of education including curriculum makers ... What the commission lacks, the National Council has-contact with the teachers" (Dawson 1922c, 46-47).

Soon after NCSS was founded, it was clear that its potential educational role and influence was attracting widespread interest. Representatives from a number of educational associations met in 1922 as part of the new Joint Commission on the Presentation of Social Studies in the Schools, and agreed to meet again. The groups involved were AHA (represented by Arthur Schlesinger and Henry Johnson), the American Economic Association (W. H. Kierkhofer and L. C. Marshall), the American Political Science Association (R. G. Gettell and W. J. Shepard), the American Sociological Society (R. L. Finney and E. C. Hayes), the National Council of Geography Teachers (Edith P. Parker and R. D. Calkins) and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (again, Marshall and C. I. Ruggles). The Commission concerned itself with a number of matters, among which were "a social study program from elementary and secondary schools, the history of the teaching of the social studies and current experiments in the presentation of the social studies" (AHA 1923, 54). AHA supported this endeavor with a number of caveats, including a request that the Commission become part of the Executive Council governing body of NCSS.

AHA's caveats were heeded by NCSS, and the NCSS Board of Directors was composed of representatives of each of the various social science associations until 1928. Also added to the Board were representatives from the Department of Superintendence of the NEA, the National Association of Elementary Principals (NAEP), the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the National Council of Normal School Principals, the National Society of College Teachers of Education, the New England History Teachers Association, the Mississippi Valley Historical Association, and the Pacific Coast Branch of the AHA. Time would show how difficult it was to maintain both diversity and a sense of direction.

The new spirit of cooperation moved NCSS to the forefront of social studies and the examination of the relevant parts of the school curriculum. Dawson stated that, had the founders of NCSS known that there would be such an outpouring of cooperation from the associations, it would have been attempted at the founding of NCSS: "The members of the established associations seemed to think that it was better for them either to stay out of the movement or to take an active part in its guidance" (1922a, 317). Fearing that they would be shut out of the curriculum, the associations chose to get involved, and NCSS seemed to be the most objective vehicle within which to do so. Although all of the social science associations wanted greater influence, they voluntarily compromised on NCSS as a "broker" of the social studies in schools and, led by AHA, began to popularize the use of the term "social studies" within their associations.

Earlier in 1922, Dawson (1922c) had noted one of the initial (and long-standing) problems of NCSS-its choice of names:

One thing that stands out in the way of some who would like to support the National Council more freely than they do as yet is its name. The title "Social Studies" is not fully understood; possibly it is not subject as yet to logical definition ... The term "social studies" was used for lack of a better one-one that would not be so cumbersome as to hamper facile discussions of the elements of this field. (46)
Dawson went on to note that a fight over the term would not be good tactics.

Gaining Adherents

NCSS President McKinley and Secretary-Treasurer Dawson were skilled organizers rather than researchers or scholars, and they invested their talents from the beginning in attempts to build up the new organization rapidly. The chief goal of NCSS in its earliest years was the recruitment of members. An initial modest goal was to try to get a member in each state, and then to involve them in statewide membership drives. At the February 1922 meeting in Chicago at the Central YMCA, this was a key topic of discussion, as was the first NCSS constitution, which was approved at that meeting.

In December 1922, Secretary-Treasurer Dawson published his first annual summary of NCSS plans and progress in an issue of The Historical Outlook, which he edited as the first Yearbook of National Council for the Social Studies. In this issue, short articles on characteristic elements of the social studies were authored by prominent professors. In that same issue NCSS also ran an advertisement seeking new members, and listing the NCSS officers and advisory board.

The NCSS leadership in the early years was primarily composed of college professors. Vanaria observes that those members "who comprised the officers, executive committee and advisory board in 1921 numbered 14 college professors, a state director of social studies instruction, a superintendent of schools, a high school principal and three high school teachers of history (one of whom was Bessie L. Pierce, who joined the history faculty at the University of Iowa the following year)" (1958, 100). He surmised that the group had few teachers because of a lack of perceived need by teachers for a national organization or because of a willingness to allow professors to do the organizational spade work. Since meetings were held at a time and place that most teachers could not go to because of teaching commitments, their participation was limited.

The effects of NCSS initiatives for new members are difficult to estimate, since membership statistics are irregular and incomplete until 1935, when a systematic annual report was initiated (Vanaria 1958, 106). Nevertheless, by 1923 there were NCSS members in all states and in Canada. In 1922, 60 percent of the members were from ten states, with 25 percent from New York and Pennsylvania. The distribution of the 790 members of NCSS in 1922 was as follows (Vanaria, 105):

Northeast: 350
Southeast: 60
Southwest: 22
North Central: 227
Northwest: 57
Far West: 58
Others (Canada): 16

Future expectations ran high. In May 1923 a column in The Historical Outlook projected optimistically "that NCSS should soon have 5000 members." In October 1923, the NCSS meetings held in July were reported as having had "more than 500 in attendance ... an excellent response" (National Council for the Social Studies 1923, 286). In 1924, at the time of the fourth annual meeting in Chicago, it was noted that NCSS had over one thousand members, though statistics for attendance at the meeting were not given. In December 1924, a column of The Historical Outlook reported that state organizations were beginning to transform their history teachers' groups into branches of NCSS, as New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Dallas, Texas, had already done. It was emphasized that NCSS was not trying to compete with local branches of history teachers, and that such conversions were locally initiated.

In The Historical Outlook in December 1925, Secretary Dawson made an unusually long report in which he traced the first five years of NCSS, and discussed the growth of membership. He reported that there were working organizations or sections of State Teachers Associations devoted to social studies in thirty-three states, nothing in fourteen (and apparently no report from one) [398-401]. Most of the officers were from high schools, but there was a smattering of college professors. Despite a national leadership of mostly college professors, the state and local groups were dominated by high school personnel.

The increase in membership continued for the rest of the decade. By 1929, membership had risen to 2,000, a peak that was unmatched for many years afterward as membership fell drastically during the Depression (Vanaria 1958, 105).

Building the Organization in the 1920s

The expansion of membership was accompanied by more extensive publications, meetings, and programs, as well as an evolution of organizational structure, and the development of NCSS relations with other educational organizations.

Publications

At the start, The Historical Outlook was the principal forum for reporting on NCSS activities, and discussing important issues. A year after the first NCSS Yearbook was included in its December issue, The Historical Outlook devoted its December 1923 issue to the Second Yearbook of NCSS, which was published in its entirety in the journal. Articles on practices, texts, the status of social studies in certain states and Dawson's report on NCSS progress constituted the Yearbook "chapters." In 1924, NCSS was also regularly represented in The Historical Outlook by Daniel Knowlton's regular column and J. Montgomery Gambrill's monthly book reviews.
The Historical Outlook became the official publication of NCSS in 1925, when its opening issue of the year listed both NCSS and AHA on the masthead. Starting the following year, NCSS provided news updates about its activities to the membership through a new column, "News of the National Council for the Social Studies," which ran in all eight issues of The Historical Outlook each year. The column, which was renamed "Recent Happenings in Social Studies" the following year, was prepared at first by an NCSS committee, but responsibility for its compilation was transferred to the NCSS editorial offices in 1935. Each month the column tried to inform NCSS members of recent completed research, such as dissertations and theses, useful journal articles, and other publications or materials of interest to the social studies teachers from the states and other sources. It also reported the work of other organizations, and the meetings of affiliated or allied unaffiliated groups.

Curriculum Concerns

Curriculum and teaching issues were of great importance throughout the 1920s. In December 1923, a report by J. Montgomery Gambrill on "Experimental Curriculum Making in Social Studies" appeared in The Historical Outlook as part of the Second Yearbook of NCSS. The report had four parts, each of which focused on one "experiment." These included social studies in the University High School of the University of Chicago, a unified Social Science Curriculum proposed by H. O. Rugg, a composite course for junior high school proposed by L. C. Marshall, and a project aimed at the scientific construction of a fact course in social studies for elementary grades (as opposed to a problems course) proposed by Carleton Washburne. Interestingly, despite the fact that Gambrill's research and report were funded by AHA, all of the above had already been described in greater detail in the Twenty-second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education in 1923 (Rugg 1923).
The quality of the teaching of history was a major concern of both NCSS and AHA. Through an investigation known as the History Inquiry, first proposed at the AHA meeting of 1921 and formalized at the 1922 meeting, AHA sought "to ascertain the existing practice and tendencies of history teaching and social studies in the schools" (AHA 1924, 82). The work commenced in October 1923, with a mandate to report the findings by December 28, 1924 (during the annual meeting in Richmond). It was supported by a grant of $5,000 from the Bureau of Educational Research of Teachers College and undertaken by a committee composed of Henry Johnson, J. Montgomery Gambrill, Daniel C. Knowlton, Albert E. McKinley, R. M. Tryon, and G. F. Zook, with William E. Lingelbach serving as chair, and Edgar Dawson as director of the investigation. Despite the time allowed, a report was published in The Historical Outlook as early as June 1924, indicating that less than a year was spent on the work. The forty-one page, double-columned report had eight sections. The first five were background and summary features, the sixth a "cross section of present curricula," and the seventh a discussion of an experiment with a test of American history given to students in grades 11 or 12 in thirty-six schools in six states around the country. The last section was labeled "general impressions," consisting of twelve such impressions that had been agreed upon in January, barely three months after the committee commenced. Eleven had to do with specific course tendencies, and the twelfth noted, "The training of teachers for the social studies, separately or as a group, is clearly in sad need of attention" (The Historical Outlook 1924, 268).

In 1925, NCSS Secretary Dawson called for a better, more thorough survey than the recently completed History Inquiry. "There is a very general demand that the Council stimulate a more rapid approach to a formulation of objectives and of minimum essentials in the social studies" (The Historical Outlook 1925, 386). That would be on the docket for the forthcoming NCSS meeting in Cincinnati. In his report of 1925, Dawson also presented a draft of "Items for a Possible Platform" offered by the Committee on Standards of Teacher Training, chaired by Bessie Pierce. The teaching platform made ten points, the last of which was most interesting: "The teaching load for social studies in the high school should never exceed four periods a day" (Dawson 1925, 401).

The chair of the above-mentioned committee, Bessie Pierce, also served as Vice-President of the Council in 1925 and became President in 1926. This succession was not typical. Vanaria (1958) observed that early on, "No continuity or scheme seems to have guided the nomination and election of officers. Not until 1930 did the Vice-President succeed to the Presidency (with the exception of Pierce), thus establishing a precedent unbroken to the present" (128).

Apart from Pierce, the first woman to serve on the Board, NCSS had four women officers in the period 1921-37. They were Nellie Jackson, first female NCSS officer (Corresponding Secretary, 1923); Mary Carney (Corresponding Secretary, 1925-1927); Edna Stone, an Oakland, California, teacher who was elected Vice-President in 1927, and Ruth West (Vice-President, 1938, elected in November 1937).

Organizational Developments. The February 1925 issue of The Historical Outlook described two constitutional amendments to be voted on at the upcoming NCSS meeting in Cincinnati. One proposed that all actions taken at the annual meeting be printed in The Historical Outlook, while the second addressed social ethics, proposing (for the second year in a row) that it be a part of the content of social studies.

At the meeting both amendments were tabled, primarily because it was felt that not enough members were in attendance to make the vote a fair reflection of the overall membership (The Historical Outlook, 143). A resolution calling for standards for teaching social studies in high school, rather than just adherence to general standards, was overwhelmingly passed. Membership dues were reduced from $1 per year to 25 cents, but $2 more per year were required to receive The Historical Outlook.

Six committees were formed at the Cincinnati meeting in 1925. These were:

1: A committee on surveys and investigations,
2: A committee to address legislation dealing with social studies,
3: A committee to formulate standards for the teaching of social studies,
4: A membership and affiliation committee,
5: A committee on policies and plans, and
6: A finance committee.
The formation of these committees, which provided a framework for addressing key issues of concern to NCSS, marked an important stage in the Council's development.

Relations with AHA and NEA

Reflecting its close ties to AHA, from 1923 NCSS held a meeting at the annual AHA conference. While continuing its relationship with AHA, NCSS also expanded its educational reach during the 1920s by becoming a department of the National Education Association (NEA). A suggestion was made in 1925 that NCSS might consider holding formal July meetings at the NEA convention where more teachers could attend. Indeed, up to that time, it had been so difficult for all to attend the NCSS meetings that it had as yet been impossible for the Board of Directors to meet all together.
The July 1925 meeting of NCSS was held at the NEA meeting in Indianapolis with two thematic sessions on training social studies teachers and their work. At that meeting NCSS officially became a part of the NEA as its Department of Social Studies, and subsequent accounts of NCSS summer meetings were reported in the annual NEA Address and Proceedings under the Department of Social Studies.

Despite this affiliation, NCSS continued to hold meetings at the annual AHA conference, and the AHA Commission on the Social Studies, established in the late 1920s, attracted a great deal of interest among NCSS members. Chaired by A. C. Krey, and supported by a large grant from the Carnegie Foundation, the Commission on the Social Studies made a report that was a lively topic of debate and discussion when NCSS met during the AHA meeting held at Duke University in December 1929. It would continue to be a focus of discussion for at least the next five years. At the 1929 AHA meeting Krey announced that the Commission had met on its own in November in New York City and approved a testing program. The Commission's Advisory Committees, whose functions included objectives, tests, and public relations, were listed along with the names of members of those committees. These included Charles Beard, Boyd Bode, Harold Rugg and Krey on objectives; Howard Hill, Ernest Horn, Henry Johnson and Krey on tests; and Robert Lynd, Krey and Jesse Newlon on public relations. Seventeen volumes on different aspects of social studies education prepared under the Commission's direction and sponsorship were published by AHA in the 1930s.

As NCSS grew concerned with standards for social studies and social studies teachers, states and large cities like Los Angeles reflected that concern and developed their own standards. This was reported in a number of the "Recent Happenings ..." columns during 1929.

The Early 1930s: Challenges and Developments

Like other institutions, NCSS was adversely affected by the Depression. After a membership peak of two thousand in 1929, a steep decline ensued. Membership bottomed out at seven hundred in 1934 (Vanaria 1958, 105).
Despite the discouraging circumstances, the 1930-37 period was a very important one for NCSS's institutional development. The scope of its activities expanded, it inaugurated a series of annual meetings separate from those of other educational associations, and, in 1937, it launched its own journal, Social Education.

Publications

During the depression, regional and state groups seemed to grow, while NCSS declined, a reflection of ever-tightening travel funds. Interestingly, the bulletins of NCSS, begun in 1927, made no reference or allusion to the severe economic and social conditions of the Great Depression. Bulletin topics included Textbooks, Historical Fiction, Tests, Reading in Social Studies, Methods of Teaching and Pamphlets on Public Affairs. Four of these first eight bulletins were edited by women (with one co-edited).
Judging by the "Recent Happenings in Social Studies" column in The Historical Outlook, the Commission on the Social Studies continued to be the primary topic of professional interest to the social studies community, but other interests were emerging. Topics covered included broadcasting in the school, the League of Nations, the activities of colleagues in Great Britain, and civic education by radio.

In 1931, for the first time NCSS published a yearbook separate from the contents of The Historical Outlook. The theme of the volume was Some Aspects of the Social Sciences in the Schools. During the 1930s, other annual volumes followed on various challenges facing social studies teaching. Publications during this period that were also considered important included two books published in 1932 by the Commission on the Social Studies on the teaching of social studies: Charles Beard's A Charter for the Social Studies in the Schools, and Henry Johnson's An Introduction to the History of the Social Sciences in Schools. Another noted publication of 1932 by an NCSS member was Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? by George S. Counts. Articles and comments in The Historical Outlook showed that this publication and Counts's thoughts were reflective of the dominant thinking among NCSS leaders.

Publications news in the year 1933 was also dominated by the Commission on the Social Studies. In The Historical Outlook in April, A. C. Krey listed its fifteen reports (subsequently seventeen) in order of publication. Also in that April issue was an announcement of the third NCSS Yearbook, Supervision in the Social Studies, edited by W. G. Kimmel.

In 1934 there was a considerable change in educational management of NCSS and its publication, The Historical Outlook, which was renamed The Social Studies at the beginning of the year. In the January 1934 edition of The Social Studies, it was explained that a new publication agreement had been worked out between AHA, NCSS and McKinley Publishing (the publisher of The Historical Outlook). Under this agreement, AHA, with the advice and cooperation of NCSS, would assume the financing and editorial management of the journal, which would now be called The Social Studies. AHA would use its surplus funds from the Commission on the Social Studies to defray editorial expenses. New editorial board representatives would come from the American Economic Association, the American Political Science Association and the American Sociological Society.

Vanaria (1958, 164) notes that McKinley's deal with AHA had been initiated without consulting the officers of the Council and he cites a letter from Pierce to Dawson of May 3, 1933 to this effect. That led to much grumbling among the officers about a lost opportunity to take over the journal or to start a new one.

At that time, however, any new expenditures were impossible for the Council to consider. In 1932-33 NCSS had an income of $1544 and expenses of $1183. A major reason for this shortage of funds was that the Farmers Loan and Trust of Iowa City closed in January 1932, tying up Council funds of $1365.62. In December the bank paid $136.56, or 10 percent of the deposit (Vanaria 1958, 165).

The Social Studies was soon superseded as the principal NCSS periodical as the result of a series of changes in 1936 and 1937. Erling Hunt became editor of The Social Studies, effective August 15, 1936, a change announced in the October 1936 issue. In November, Hunt explained the changes. W.G. Kimmel, who had begun as associate editor of The Social Studies in 1934, and had become editor upon Albert McKinley's death in February 1935, resigned in the summer of 1936 in order to become associate editor of John C. Winston Company in Philadelphia. This also necessitated Kimmel's resignation as associate in Civic Education at Teachers College, Columbia. To assist Hunt, Katherine Crane, who held a recent Ph.D. in history from the University of Chicago and was a former secondary school teacher, was named associate editor.

The December 1936 issue of The Social Studies was the last to be published under the aegis of NCSS and AHA. Beginning in January 1937, the official journal of NCSS was Social Education, which had editorial offices at Columbia under the editorial supervision of AHA. Hunt became editor and chair of the Executive Board. Crane shifted with Hunt to Social Education as Associate Editor. AHA still needed Commission royalties to publish Social Education, and the headquarters of the secretary-treasurer of NCSS continued to be at Harvard where it had been since January 1936, and where Howard Wilson was ensconced. Wilson's term ended in 1939, but the headquarters of NCSS remained at Harvard with Wilbur Murra, a young graduate student of Krey and Edgar B. Wesley, serving as the Council's first executive secretary. In 1940 NCSS moved to the NEA Building in Washington, and a much tighter NCSS-NEA relationship was forged.

Meetings

NCSS meetings continued to be held in different parts of the country, and to attract relatively large turnouts. Even in bad times in 1931, two to three hundred people attended the NCSS luncheon at the NCSS summer meeting in Los Angeles. Two years later, in Chicago, the October issue of The Historical Outlook reported that "Three hundred were at sessions with several hundred others turned away because of lack of space in rooms," at the Stevens Hotel (now the Conrad Hilton) on Michigan Avenue.
The 1934 meetings were held in Cleveland in February (with three hundred attendees) and in Washington in both July and December. Despite the difficult economic times, some interesting seminars were being offered in the "Recent Happenings . . ." column of The Social Studies. A Cuban seminar in Havana was noted in January; others in Mexico and Moscow were noted in April.

Once again, Commission on the Social Studies activities were highlighted at the meetings, with papers addressing the varying reports on the social studies. At all three NCSS meetings, the reports were on the agenda with educator responses in July, and reviews of the reports and meetings on their topics in December.

In December 1934, at the NCSS meetings in Washington, a major new development took place. It was proposed that "NCSS hold a two-day session on the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving." Such a meeting would be similar to the regular meetings of the National Council of English Teachers ("Recent Happenings ...," February 1935, 120). The idea was popular, and the following year, NCSS held its first "stand-alone" meeting in New York on November 29 and 30. So successful was this deemed by the NCSS leadership that the practice was repeated in Detroit in 1936, and in St. Louis the following year, establishing a tradition of November meetings that continues today.

In the January 1936 issue of The Social Studies, Wilbur Murra reviewed the first independent meeting of NCSS and found it wonderful. "(T)he richness of simultaneous programs presented problems of choice, and not a few members tried to hear parts of different programs which were in progress at the same time" (Murra 1936a, 4). Murra also mentioned the delegates who attended from cooperating organizations. "It is probable that the custom of designating delegates will be developed more fully and much of the business of the Council will be handled by them in the future"(4). A most insightful, accurate comment, to be sure.

Major Issues

Social studies curriculum issues were a continuing major concern of the Council in the 1930s. Apart from its contribution through the publications mentioned above, the Council was active in urging appropriate attention to social studies by NEA. In 1934, the Department of Superintendence of NEA proposed to publish its Fourteenth Yearbook in 1936 on The Social Studies Curriculum, but drew up a list of prospective authors that had no specialist in either social studies or social sciences ("Recent Happenings ...," April 1934, 186). Some literary lobbying by NCSS apparently helped to improve the list, because when the Fourteenth Yearbook was published, it included chapters by Charles Beard, George Counts and Howard Wilson, all prominent social studies figures. Murra (1936b), in a favorable review of this yearbook, compared it to the AHA Commission report, highlighting similarities and differences between the two. He noted that "the practical usefulness of the yearbook, with its material that can be applied to immediate problems of curriculum construction, will fill a need that the Report of the American Historical Association Commission failed to provide for" (28). Murra described the yearbook as "the most comprehensive and most usable treatment of the subject available"(10).
New challenges loomed for NCSS as a result of the political developments of the 1930s. From 1935 to 1937 (and beyond) one of the biggest issues confronting NCSS and social studies educators was loyalty oaths. New York State seemed to have the most legislation addressing that topic and the most resistance among social studies educators. Columns in the April and May issues of The Social Studies addressed this issue very seriously, and the concern grew by October. Loyalty oaths, "red restrictions," the American Legion, fascism, student oaths, censorship and student spies were also discussed the following year in the January, February, March, April, May and October issues of The Social Studies. At an NCSS meeting in Portland in July 1936, two American Legion officers announced that the Legion now opposed loyalty oaths as un-American, though the Legion continued to closely monitor school programs (Gellerman 1938).

It was clear by 1937 that an educational association like NCSS could not view the world from an ivory tower. In the next stage of its development, the challenges of a changing world for the social studies became much more pronounced. By that time, however, NCSS had "settled into" a more independent stature, and was poised for growth and more active work in schools.

Assessing the Period, 1921 - 1937

National Council for the Social Studies began as a service organization that would both bridge the gap between social scientists and secondary school teachers and re-examine knowledge within the disciplines in light of potential use in schools. Founded by five practitioner-researchers, the organization was swiftly taken over by two hard-working entrepreneurs. Neither researchers nor scholars, McKinley and Dawson seemed to possess little vision other than an organizing spirit, and NCSS emerged directionless from its birth.
Despite its lack of intellectual purpose, NCSS struck a responsive chord among many in higher education who had a deep interest in social sciences in schools. At a time when NEA, AHA, APSA, AEA and ASS had "stakes" in the school curriculum "game," the creation of NCSS allowed for all parties to meet on a neutral field. NCSS was swiftly accepted as an objective broker of the issues of social science teaching in schools.

The choice of the term "social studies," as noted previously, was seen as reflective of this inclusive, neutral stance by the organization's founders, but early on was perceived as a "sticking point" by some parties. By the late 1920s AHA softened its stance against the term, probably because it saw itself losing this battle, trivial though it might be.

With the concession by AHA and its subsequent naming of a Commission on the Social Studies in 1928 to continue the work of the Committee on History Teaching in the Schools, the term "social studies" became not only accepted, but preferred. The Commission's work was led by a number of prominent historians like Guy Stanton Ford and A. C. Krey of Minnesota, Carlton Hayes and Charles Beard of Columbia, and other social scientists like geographer Isaiah Bowman and political scientist Charles Merriam. It lent credence to social studies, and by associative extension to NCSS.

NCSS allied itself early with both NEA and AHA. NCSS was never a formal part of AHA, but the latter provided financial and publishing support for many years, even though from 1925 to 1969, NCSS was officially a part of NEA as its Department of Social Studies. NCSS was neither fish nor fowl, and this had its advantages and disadvantages.

For the first ten years of its organizational life, NCSS campaigned for members to give real life to the association. By the late 1920s, NCSS seemed to be catching on with teachers, despite the fact that the group was largely run by a small group of higher educators and an assortment of school people.

Intellectually the group was stunted early on, but in the 1930s attracted educators and social scientists with more pronounced academic views and involvement. The organization was predominantly a voice of progressivism and liberal political views. The more intellectual educators and social scientists came to NCSS with a hope for the improvement of schools and society. Unfortunately, their involvement seemed to provoke indifference rather than organizational actions. "They simply weren't listened to, and they simply stopped their involvement with NCSS" (Engle 1994).

NCSS had a few women officers in its early years and active involvement by women on both Committees and Yearbook chapters. The journal The Historical Outlook, and later The Social Studies, also was an obvious outlet for publication by women in social science disciplines and in school positions.

Despite the best of intentions NCSS struggled for acceptance, membership, intellectual respect and a political voice in the debates on schools in the period 1921 to 1937. It would seem that in the nearly sixty years since, little has changed. It is a disheartening observation, but one grounded in historical and contemporary realities.

References

American Historical Association Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: AHA, 1921.

American Historical Association Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: AHA, 1922.

American Historical Association Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: AHA, 1923.

"A National Council for the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 12, no. 4 (1921): 144.

Boozer, H. R. "The AHA and the Schools." Ph.D. diss., Washington University, St. Louis, 1960.

Correia, S. "For Their Own Good: An Historical Analysis of the Educational Thought of Thomas Jesse Jones." Ph.D. diss., The Pennsylvania State University, 1993.

Dawson, E. "An Organization to Promote the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 12, no. 8 (1921): 300-31.

-----. "The Plans of the National Council for the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 13, no. 8 (1922a): 317-21.

-----. "The National Council Is Growing." The Historical Outlook 13, no. 3 (1922b): 107.

-----. "The National Council Again." The Historical Outlook 13, no. 2 (1922c): 46-49.

-----. "Report of the NCSS Secretary." The Historical Outlook 16, no. 8 (1925): 395-401.

-----. "Eighth Annual Meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 19, no. 6 (1928): 221-22.

-----. "Proposed History of NCSS." The Social Studies 26, no. 2 (1935): 124.

Engle, Shirley. Phone conversation with the author (February 17, 1994).

Gambrill, J. M. "Proposed Reorganization of the National Council for the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 19, no. 5 (1928): 221-22.

Gellerman, W. The American Legion as Educator. Columbia: Teachers College, 1938.

Keels, O. M. "In the Beginning-Albert McKinley and the Founding of The Social Studies." The Social Studies 85, no. 5 (1994): 198-205.

Lybarger, M. "Origins of the Social Studies Curriculum: 1865-1916." Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1981.

Murra, Wilbur. Interview with Murry R. Nelson, Foundation of Social Studies SIG Business Meeting. NCSS Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, November 19, 1994.

-----. "The New York Meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies." The Social Studies 27, no. 1 (1936a): 1-5.

-----. "The Social Studies Curriculum-A Review." In The League Scrip. Minneapolis: Minneapolis Teachers' League, 1936b.

-----. "The Birth of the NCSS-As Remembered by Earle U. Rugg." Social Education 34, no. 7 (1970): 728-29.

National Council for the Social Studies. The Historical Outlook 14, no. 7 (1923).

Nelson, M. "The Development of the Rugg Social Studies Program." Theory and Research in Social Education 5, no. 3 (1977): 64-83.

"News of Associations." The Historical Outlook 14, no. 5 (1923).

"Recent Happenings in the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 21, no. 2 (1930): 78.

"Recent Happenings in the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 25, no. 4 (1934): 186.

"Recent Happenings in the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 26, no. 7 (1935): 412.

"Report of the Joint Commission on Presentation of Social Studies in the Schools." The Historical Outlook 14, no. 2 (1923): 53-54.

Rugg, E. "A National Council for the Social Studies." The Historical Outlook 12, no. 5 (1921): 190.

Rugg, Earle. Audiotape recorded. Greeley, Colo. Used with permission, Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1966.

Rugg, H., ed. The Social Studies. Twenty-Second Annual Yearbook (Part II). Bloomington, Ill.: National Society for the Study of Education, 1923.

Saxe, D. Social Studies in Schools. Albany: SUNY Press, 1991.

"Social Studies in the Summer Schools." The Historical Outlook 13, no. 6 (1922): 227.

Vanaria, L. "The National Council for the Social Studies: A Voluntary Organization for Professional Service." Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1958.

Wesley, E. (1933). "An Open Letter." The Historical Outlook 24, no. 6 (1933): 332-33.

Murry R. Nelson is Professor of Education and American Studies and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Curriculum and Instruction at the Pennsylvania State University.

 

 

 

A Time for Growth, a Time for War, a Time for Leadership: 1937-1947

By Sherry L. Field, Lynn M. Burlbaw

As the United States struggled through the Great Depression, and inevitable conflict in Europe began to surface, American schooling remained resilient. The economic crisis brought about by the Great Depression and the political and ideological crises brought about by World War II inevitably brought change into the nation's schools - in curriculum, in organization, even in a shortage of teachers. Especially in the social studies, the Second World War was likely the catalyst for major and rapid changes in curriculum in the schools (Davis 1981; Nelson 1986; Jones 1990; Garrett 1990; and Field 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1995). In January 1940, Erling M. Hunt, the first editor of Social Education, remarked, "However few the issues that have been definitively settled, the 1930s can scarcely go down as a period of quiet or drifting in social studies teaching" (1).

The National Council for the Social Studies was still a fairly small organization in 1937, and many changes were to occur as World War II approached. Dues for membership in the Council were $3.00, and included a $2 subscription to Social Education. Three meetings were held during the year, and they were scheduled to coincide with annual conventions of the American Historical Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National Education Association. An independent meeting had been added to the schedule. It was planned around Thanksgiving holidays, "because the hotels in New York would be available then." According to Howard R. Anderson, President of NCSS in 1940, "three decisions reached in the late 1930s greatly increased the effectiveness of the NCSS as a professional organization: (1) to have an independent annual meeting; (2) to edit and publish its own magazine, Social Education; and (3) to have a full-time executive secretary" (Anderson 1970, 803).

Significant debate about what should be taught in social studies surfaced after World War I and continued into the 1937-47 time period. Mehaffy (1987) noted in his study of World War I curricular changes the trends toward an emphasis on teaching modern history rather than ancient history, the importance of "citizenship training" during social studies, a new interest in current events teaching, increased and revitalized emphasis upon geography, highlighted teaching about democratic values, and much debate about the use of new visual aids in elementary and secondary classrooms. A survey of schooling during the years 1930-1940 likewise held that the study of modern history seemed to be firmly rooted in American schools, but that the majority of courses offered relied upon traditional materials and made no attempt to make connections with contemporary history in the making. For example, one school study unit on dictatorships did not mention a modern world in crisis (Bruner, Evans, Hutchcroft, Wieting, and Wood 1941).

Publications of the Council

During the 1930s, NCSS embraced an ambitious publications agenda and published yearbooks, a curriculum series, bulletins and a new journal, Social Education. Before this endeavor, "only two bulletins had been published prior to 1928, and the first yearbook appeared in 1931" (Anderson, 1970). An overriding focus of the publications during the ten years between 1937 and 1947 was the attempt to clarify what the social studies was to remain or to become: either a unified body of knowledge or a series of related disciplines. Responding to new social needs and conceptualizing educational theory and practice were two issues that consistently appeared in the pages of social studies publications. Erling M. Hunt, editor of Social Education, noted in one of the first Editor's Pages that:
Two contrary views of education confront teachers today: one, that education is concerned with passing on our cultural heritage and preserving the status quo; the other that education is concerned with enabling individuals both to adapt themselves to a changing society and make that society better. (1938, 77)
According to Hunt, the first view shamelessly avoided controversy, and the second either sought out controversial issues or "at least believed that they must be confronted in schools" (1938, 77).

In 1937 and 1938, "at the suggestion of Howard E. Wilson, social studies educator at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Secretary-Treasurer of NCSS from 1936-1940, the Board of Directors of NCSS appointed a Publications Committee" (Murra 1995, 57). This committee consisted of three members to serve three-year terms. The original members were: Wilbur Murra, Chairman, to serve three years; Fremont Wirth, to serve two years; and Edgar Wesley, to serve one year. According to Murra, planning for publications prior to 1938 had been organized loosely, and the President-Elect of NCSS was charged with selecting the "subject of the yearbook to be presented at the annual meeting at which he would take office as president" (1995, 58).

NCSS Yearbooks

The twelve yearbooks published during the period 1937-1947 focused on topics for the improvement of social studies teaching and the clarification of educational theory and practice. They included:

 

• 1937 Seventh Yearbook Education Against Propaganda
• 1937 Eighth Yearbook The Contributions of Research to the Teaching of Social Studies
• 1938 Ninth Yearbook The Utilization of Community Resources in the Social Studies
• 1939 Tenth Yearbook The In-Service Growth of Social Sciences Teachers
• 1940 Eleventh Yearbook Economic Education
• 1941 Twelfth Yearbook Social Studies in the Elementary Schools
• 1942 Thirteenth Yearbook Teaching Critical Thinking in the Social Studies
• 1943 Fourteenth Yearbook Citizens for a New World
• 1944 Fifteenth Yearbook Adapting Instruction in the Social Studies to Individual Differences
• 1945 Sixteenth Yearbook Democratic Human Relations
• 1946 Seventeenth Yearbook The Study and Teaching of American History
• 1947 Eighteenth Yearbook Audio Visual Materials and Methods in the Social Studies

Many of the editors and chapter authors of these yearbooks were leaders in the National Council for the Social Studies and various professional organizations related to curriculum and teaching. Among the noted names were Edgar B. Wesley, Professor, University of Minnesota; Edgar Dale, Associate Professor, Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University; W. G. Kimmel, Associate Editor, The John C. Winston Company; Wilbur F. Murra, Instructor, Harvard University; J. W. Wrightstone, Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University; I. James Quillen, Professor, Stanford University; Paul R. Hanna, Professor, Stanford University; James A. Michener, then director of social studies at the secondary school of Colorado State College of Education; A. C. Krey, Professor of History, University of Minnesota; Lewis Paul Todd, Erling M. Hunt, Columbia University; William Van Til, and Hilda Taba.

Of particular interest to social studies teachers in a world hurtling toward World War II was surely the Seventh Yearbook, Education Against Propaganda, and the first yearbook of this study period. Several authors called attention to the growing crisis overseas, seeing it as an ominous foreboding for the future. For example, in his chapter, "Propaganda and Society," Harwood L. Childs, Associate Professor of Politics at Princeton University, noted that as World War I came to a close:

numerous writers in this and other countries carefully studied the war-time experience, and the new generation of rulers sought to profit from it. In the recently created dictatorships abroad, the War gave a special impetus to the conscious, purposeful analysis of methods of social control. And in a very real sense the rise of Hitlerism in Germany today is to a large extent an outcome of the Leader's recognition of the significance of this war-time experience. (Childs 1937, 6)

Likewise, Harold D. Lasswell, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, wrote:

It is obvious that whoever controls the agencies of communication will probably use them for propaganda. In the Soviet Union, in Fascist Italy, or in National Socialist Germany, it is not difficult to discover who runs the chief channels of news and comment. Government control is paramount, and those who control the government control the press, radio, motion picture, and platform. (Lasswell 1937, 16)

Other authors in this volume on propaganda offered information intended for classroom use, such as "How to Read Domestic News" (Casey 1937); "Propaganda and the Radio" (Cantril 1937); "Teaching Resistance to Propaganda" (Biddle 1937); and "Teaching Students in Social Studies Classrooms to Guard Against Propaganda" (Price 1937).

Curriculum Series

The first publication of the Curriculum Series, The Future of the Social Studies, came out of press in November 1939, and was reprinted in March 1940. James A. Michener, the editor of Curriculum Series: Number One, asked twenty leaders in social studies education to write statements of what, in the opinion of each, the best curriculum in the social studies might be. Each was asked to state in detail "the specific content, types of content, or types of experience" to be included in the ideal curriculum for the twelve or fourteen years of the elementary and secondary schools .... It [the publication] furnishes, we hope, a picture not necessarily of what is now being done, but of what leaders in the educational world think should be done in the field of social studies. (emphasis in original, Michener 1939, iii)
The volume made a strong impression on the field of social studies. According to Wilbur Murra, then chair of the Publications Committee of NCSS, "On November 24, 1939, Michener chaired the general session of the NCSS 19th Annual Meeting in Kansas City, at which The Future... was presented and discussed. The session lasted 2 hours" (Murra 1995).

A need was seen for the publication of other curriculum series that would inform professionals in their practice and curriculum planning:

In the meantime, a Committee on Curriculum was created. This committee was not immediately involved in anything about The Future of the Social Studies. But, The Future... made a big splash upon publication during the first week in November 1939.... The Curriculum Committee decided to issue a sequel to The Future in 1940, the new book to be entitled Courses and Units in the Social Studies (title changed for its second edition to Program and Units). The Curriculum Committee proposed to designate the 1940 book as "Curriculum Series: Number Two," and that involved a retroactive designation of The Future... as "Curriculum Series Number One." This designation on The Future... was first used on its second printing ... in March, 1940, and in publicity about it coupled with publicity about "Number Two." (Wilbur Murra, personal communication to Cleta Galvez-Hjornevik, December 8, 1977)
Four Curriculum Series publications were printed between 1939 and 1945. They were, with editors noted:

• Number One The Future of the Social Studies, Proposals for an Experimental Social Studies Curriculum, James A. Michener, Editor, 1939.
• Number Two Programs and Units in the Social Studies, Henry Kronenberg, Editor, 1941.
• Number Three Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School, W. Linwood Chase, Editor, 1943.
• Number Four Social Education for Young Children: Kindergarten and Primary Grades, Mary Willcockson, Editor, 1945.

Of the four curriculum series mentioned here, Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School (Chase 1943) was the only one directly related to wartime teaching, and it provided riveting, practical advice for elementary classroom teachers, grades K-8. A description of this volume and its contents is provided in greater detail below.

Bulletins

In addition to the Curriculum Series, National Council for the Social Studies also published Bulletins for the improvement of instruction in social studies. The Bulletins, designed primarily to serve as guides and references, included content on appropriate test items (e.g., Bulletin No. 6: Selected Test Items in American History, published in 1936, revised 1940; and Bulletin No. 11: Selected Test Items in Economics, published in 1939). Others focused on the use of materials and topics to be taught by social studies teachers (e.g., Bulletin No. 10: The Constitution Up to Date, published in 1938; and Bulletin No. 16: Teaching the Civil Liberties, published in 1941). Bulletins 8 through 20 were published between 1937 and 1945.

Social Education

The first issue of Social Education appeared in January 1937. The funds that enabled its publication came indirectly from a grant given to A. C. Krey of the Commission on the Social Studies. As Edgar Wesley, an early leader in National Council for the Social Studies, remembered:

Krey had a grant as I recall, $350,000, and when he got through-I don't know whether by oversight or by prudence-he had $40,000 left. And that was a great sum.... The Executive Secretary of the American Historical Association at that time was Colliers Reed, who was a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania. (Wesley, oral history interview, 1968-1969)

Reed intended to use the extra money to publish a history book on the medieval period. Edgar Wesley suggested instead that the money be given to National Council for the Social Studies, an organization Reed had never heard about. Wesley recounted:

I did a little explanation; I told him a little about it, that we were few in numbers, weak in financing, undecided in thinking, and all that.... I didn't try to deceive him on what the organization could do.... The American Historical Association said they would appoint a committee, and fortunately, I was appointed to that committee by the AHA. They got other sympathetic colleagues appointed by the National Council, so that we really had a National Council Committee, although technically it was a committee of the AHA. But it was, shall we say, loaded with National Council people so that we really took that $40,000 and established Social Education. (Wesley, oral history interview, 1968-1969)

From its beginning in 1937, Social Education published articles with theoretical perspectives whose purpose was to question the purpose and need for social studies, and articles with practical suggestions whose purpose was to improve instruction in social studies classrooms. The journal also became a barometer of the world's changing political situation, as the United States joined the world in watching the events in Europe.

International issues grew in importance, and the predominant emphasis was on Latin America, Canada, and Asia. In 1939, only five articles in Social Education had international issues as a focus, but by 1945 fifteen articles appeared with international emphasis. In February 1943, Social Education provided information about four texts written for high school use about China, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Throughout the war, Social Education reported the publication of numerous pamphlets and books on Latin America and Asia, especially "to fill gaps in instructional materials" (Hunt 1943). Heightened awareness about Latin America and Asia was indicated by numerous advertisements in Social Education for newly published books and other materials. Many of the references to Latin America noted the potential of the region for supplying the United States with raw materials (Jones 1990).

Social Education reflected typical classroom practice of the era in articles written by classroom teachers, curriculum directors and school administrators, and by university researchers. For example, the use of current events in social studies classes was documented at different times during the war (Gemmecke 1943; Meredith 1945). Erling Hunt noted that increased current events teaching often was the only indicator of change in the social studies curriculum during the war years (1943). Meredith's 1945 survey of secondary social studies offerings revealed numerous new courses added to existing social studies programs across the nation. For example, school districts across the nation reported adding courses in Latin American History, International Relations, Culture of Canada and Latin America, Global Neighbors, Far East, Pan American Relations, Pacific Area and Far East, and Asia and America. This survey also noted the shifting emphases of existing courses in schools. Of the 29 states reporting, 26 reported increased emphasis of Latin America in history courses, 18 denoted more attention to the Pacific, and 17 stated that the Far East was emphasized more heavily. Of 22 cities represented in the survey, 16 reported additional emphasis on Latin America and the Far East, and 15 reported heightened teaching about the Pacific.

The Social Studies React to War

Policy suggestions for wartime social studies to be given a place of prominence in wartime education quickly appeared. Especially significant to elementary social studies programs were three reports issued by the National Council for the Social Studies. The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory and Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School appeared early in the war. The Social Studies Look Beyond the War: A Statement of Postwar Policy was issued later, in 1944.

The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory

"All segments of ... normal life in 1942 were preoccupied by wartime policy," according to Roy A. Price (1970), President of NCSS in 1942.

The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory was published during Price's term of office. It was authored by the NCSS Commission on Wartime Policy, organized in September 1942. The Commission on Wartime Policy drew upon one hundred of social studies' and education's most prominent leaders, including Charles Beard, W. Linwood Chase, Erling M. Hunt, James A. Michener, I. James Quillen, and Hilda Taba. The Commission was chaired by the distinguished Howard E. Wilson, professor of education at Harvard University. The document was adopted formally by the National Council for the Social Studies at its annual meeting in New York City on November 28, 1942. Sixteen pages in length, the policy report offered a broad overview of wartime changes suggested for the social studies curriculum. Among its recommendations, it called for study of the world at war, an accelerated civic instruction, an understanding and appreciation of the democratic way of life, an understanding of the interrelationships of industrial and social forces, an increased geography education, an emphasis on economic aspects of the war, an attack on racial and national hatred, and a study of postwar reconstruction. Probably because of its nature as a kind of policy report rather than a detailed curriculum guide, no more than two paragraphs of text accompanied each major recommendation.

A summary of the report, written by Wilbur F. Murra, Executive Secretary of the National Council for the Social Studies, was published in at least two educational journals, The Texas Outlook and Educational Method, in March 1943. The full report was republished earlier in the January 1943 issue of Social Education. Murra's summaries (1943a, 1943b) emphasized three major assertions of the NCSS wartime policy: civic education is essential to the morale, efficiency, and wisdom of the nation; the core of civic education is the social studies; and the present crisis calls for changes in social studies programs. The specific subject-area material in Murra's identical articles urged:

• that world-history and modern-history courses give special attention to the background and status of China, India, Russia, and the British Commonwealth of Nations.
• that special units on Canada and the Latin-American peoples be included in social-studies courses, especially in grades four to nine.
• that courses in American history and civics give special attention to minority groups in the United States.
• that imperialism, colonialism, the protection of minorities, and the elevation of depressed groups be reexamined with reference to needs of the immediate future.
• that the basic faith and vision of democracy be strengthened in all existing social studies courses.
• that responsibilities, self-disciplines, and privileges of citizenship be stressed.
• that a full year of social geography be added to existing courses of study.

Not surprisingly, Murra's summary of The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory did not identify specific activities, accelerations, and enhancements which teachers would find practical, given the length of the document. Lacking, too, was a timeline which could be helpful for the planning of specific grade-level units and activities and any recognition of the importance of studying countries other than the United States' allies.

Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School

Perhaps the most influential policy document for wartime elementary social studies education was published in September 1943 by National Council for the Social Studies. Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School, edited by W. Linwood Chase, professor of education at Boston University, provided substantive lesson plans including evaluative measures, suggestions for the teacher, and references which were missing from earlier NCSS publications. Unlike NCSS's first policy report, Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School contained descriptions of concrete, practical activities by which social studies education could be augmented in the nation's schools.
"The Story of the War: A Learning Unit for Intermediate Grades" launched Chase's (1943) report. This plan included several sections of background substantive content, including information about the causes of the war, the enemies, national war aims, "The Four Freedoms," and the United Nations. In each section's narrative, aims for children were included. For example, in the section titled "The Enemy," children were to understand what life was like in a dictatorship and "then draw from it the corresponding parallels in the American way of life" (2). Lest young Americans become anti-German or anti-Japanese, Chase advised teachers to "try to help children feel that the people in the enemy countries are human beings like ourselves" (3). This section concluded with a set of pupil activities and suggestions for the teacher with which to implement the stated aims. Representative pupil activities featured a comparison of dictators from present and past times; a picture collection of planes, warships, tanks, guns, and military uniforms and insignias; maps showing German and Japanese expansions; a collection of heroism stories; and a drama about "The Four Freedoms."

A helpful section of Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary Schools focused on "War Duties of Young Citizens." Chase recognized the need for children to understand problems enlarged by war, such as the necessity to conserve war materials and accept substitutes willingly, to appreciate the huge financial costs of war and the consequent need to buy savings bonds and stamps, and to accept wartime rationing willingly and to understand its necessity. "War Duties" contained several substantial units of study. The units about war production included topics such as war costs, war price controls, war rationing, and war conservation. Each contained desired aims and outcomes, understandings and skills, background material, suggested activities, and evaluative suggestions (Chase 1943).

The most extensive unit, "War Production," had been prepared by the Rhode Island State Council of Defense. Desired outcomes for elementary grades 4-6 included an understanding of the diminished supply of goods available to civilians, an appreciation for increased manufacturing demands, a recognition of national efforts to produce needed goods, and a desire to learn more about American war production. Skills outcomes for the unit included an ability to use simple charts and maps relating to war production and war locations, ability to use a war vocabulary, and ability to compare wartime and peacetime production. Sixteen activities were suggested for classroom use. They included making scrapbooks with production-related information; painting characterizations of war workers; reading about construction of ships, tanks, and airplanes; graphing and keeping bulletin boards on war production; and studying local plants whose manufactured products changed because of war needs. The evaluation guides were simple and consisted of the inquiries, such as, "Do pupils understand why America must increase production?", "Do pupils understand some of the ways in which the production has been increased?", and "Do pupils appreciate the necessity for changes in their daily lives brought about by war production?" (Chase 1943, 8).

A straightforward section advocated the use of a period in the daily schedule for current events in elementary social studies classrooms. Chase recommended regular current events periods which "should not be used for indiscriminate accounts of major disasters, flaming headlines, or mere chit-chat" (1943, 14). Contributions from the sixth-grade class of Cleveland, Ohio, teacher Frances Todd Kinsey illustrated possible activities for use by other teachers. Activities from her "Who's Who in the United States Today" unit of study included reading Time magazine, The Young Citizen, and current events; reports about prominent citizens followed by class discussions; assembling a bulletin board of current events and heroes; writing biographies; drawing; and presenting a quiz program for other sixth-grade classes.

In addition to teaching about the war in social studies classes, teachers were urged to promote loyalty to the principles of democracy in various ways. Endorsing the emotional nature of patriotism, Chase advised social studies educators to make use of pageantry, flag salutes, pledges, rituals, the singing of the national anthem, patriotic music, dramatizations, exhibits, bulletin boards, posters, artistic creations, motion pictures, radio programs, assembly programs, stories of heroes, and slogans. He suggested possible titles for patriotic pageants, including "I Hear America Singing," "Our Heritage," "The Gifts of Our Ancestors," and "Why I'm Glad I'm an American." A poem composed by the fifth-grade class of teacher Elizabeth Perry, Driscoll School, Brookline, Massachusetts, intoned typical patriotic sentiments in its final verse:

This war is for democracy
The people's war,
Where each must do his share -
The men and women of the United Nations,
The men and women of the invaded countries,
The men and women on the battle fronts,
The men and women in the factories,
The boys and girls in school,
All work and fight,
All fight and work,
To save our way of life,
To save democracy. (1943, 19)

While activities such as this group-composed poem above were encouraged, Chase urged teachers to be mindful of preventing "outward manifestations from becoming substitutes for real devotion"(18). Obviously, teachers should wholeheartedly promote the rituals and pageantry of patriotic symbols and stress a deeper meaning to young citizens. Children should also be helped to articulate a personal meaning of democracy clearly and convincingly as part of their wartime patriotic duty.

Complete with background substantive material, recommended instructional materials, reading lists, nature of materials presented, and unit activities of practical applicability, Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary Schools provided a usable, important guide for social studies teachers. The varied sources provided for the report from six states (e.g., Oregon, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, and New Jersey) were indicative of widespread implementation of similar units of study and classroom activities.

The Social Studies Look Beyond the War

Long before World War II came to an end in 1945, NCSS members began to envision what the world would be like after the war. The Social Studies Look Beyond the War: A Statement of Postwar Policy was published in November 1944 and was authored by Erling M. Hunt, Mary G. Kelty, Allen Y. King, Merrill F. Hartshorn, and Roy A. Price. All were current officers of NCSS except Price, a Board of Directors member and former President. Like its two predecessors, The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory (1942) and Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary Schools (Chase 1943), The Social Studies Look Beyond the War was quite significant. This statement of policy highlighted many of the accomplishments and improvements in education made by teachers during the war. NCSS members, like other educators across the nation, expressed eloquently a desire for a peaceful world that would benefit from the many hard lessons learned during World War II.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the nation at the time of Brotherhood Week (February 20-26, 1944). He noted that "all men are children of one father, and brothers in the human family, and ... brotherhood must prevail." Indeed, various efforts were being made in the name of intercultural education (Field 1995). Teachers were urged to "talk about the peace which is sure to come. Point out that fathers, brothers, uncles, and others are fighting for peace and world order" (Stevens 1943, p. 65). As the war continued, many schools modified or realigned their social studies programs to meet the need for intercultural education. Buoyed by public attention to the atrocities being committed overseas and to the social problems stemming from intolerance in the United States, the work of social studies educators expanded to meet these needs as well. They sought to advance changes in educational goals such that young Americans would be prepared to maintain the peace to come without resorting to violence. To maintain the home front during chaotic times was a monumental task. National Council for the Social Studies and its members rose valiantly to the occasion during these years, exhibiting professionalism, wisdom, and leadership. It met extraordinary challenges - and met them well. 

References

Anderson, H. R. "Social Education Asks: Responses of Twenty-five Former Presidents of NCSS." Social Education 34, no. 8 (1970): 802-12, 868.

Biddle, H. K. "Teaching Resistance to Propaganda." In Education Against Propaganda, NCSS 7th Yearbook, 115-26. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1937.

Bruner, H. B., H. M. Evans, C. R. Hutchcroft, C. M. Wieting, and H. B. Wood. What Our Schools Are Teaching. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941.

Cantril, H. "Propaganda and Radio." In Education Against Propaganda, NCSS 7th Yearbook, 87-99. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1937.

Casey, R. D. "How to Read Domestic News." In Education Against Propaganda, NCSS 7th Yearbook, 27-41. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1937.

Chase, W. L. Wartime Social Studies in the Elementary School. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1943.

Childs, H. L. "Propaganda and Society." In Education Against Propaganda, NCSS 7th Yearbook, 1-13. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1937.

Davis, O. L., Jr. "Understanding the History of the Social Studies." In The Social Studies, Eightieth Yearbook of the Society for the Study of Education, edited by H. M. Mehlinger and O. L. Davis, Jr., 19-35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Field, S. L. "Doing Their Bit for Victory: U. S. Elementary Education During World War II." Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society 18 (1990): 65-84.

Field, S. L. "Old Glory, the Constitution, and Responsible Americanism: Elementary School Citizenship Education During World War II." Citizenship as Social Studies Education, Foundations of the Social Studies Special Interest Group, Bulletin 4 (1992), 4-13.

Field, S. L. "Scrap Drives, Stamp Sales, and School Spirit: Examples of Elementary Social Studies During World War II." Theory and Research in Social Education 23, no. 1 (1994): 441-60.

Field, S. L. "Intercultural Education, a Wartime Recognition of Oversight, and Negro History in Chicago Schools." Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society 22 (1995): 75-85.

Galvez-Hjornevik, C. "James A. Michener: Educator." Ph.D. diss., The University of Texas at Austin, 1984.

Garrett, A. W. "School Leaders at the Brink of War: The American School Board Journal's Journey from Neutrality to Preparedness, October 1939 - December 1941." Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society 18 (1990): 85-104.

Gemmecke, R. H. "Current Events for Civic Competence." Social Education 7 (1943): 76-77.

Hunt, E. M. "Editor's Page." Social Education 2, no. 2 (1938): 77-79.

Hunt, E. M. "Editor's Page." Social Education 4, no. 1 (1940): 1-3.

Hunt, E. M. "Editor's Page." Social Education 7, no. 3 (1943): 147-48.

Jones, E. "The Impact of World War II on the Social Studies: The Rhetoric of Crisis." Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society 18 (1990): 187-202.

Laswell, H. D. "Propaganda and the Channels of Communication." In Education Against Propaganda, NCSS 7th Yearbook, 14-26. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1937.

Michener, J. A. The Future of the Social Studies: Proposals for an Experimental Social-Studies Curriculum. Cambridge, Mass.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1939.

Mehaffy, G. "Social Studies in World War One: A Period of Transition." Theory and Research in Social Education 15, no. 1 (1987): 23-32.

Meredith, D. "Secondary School Social Studies in 1945." Social Education 9, no. 6 (1945): 345-49.

Murra, W. F. "Social Studies Mobilize for Victory." The Texas Outlook 27, no. 3 (1943a): 41.

Murra, W. F. "The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory." Educational Method 22, no. 6 (1943b): 266-67.

Murra, W. F. "The NCSS and the Michener Connection: A Memoir by Wilbur Murra." Early Founders of the Social Studies, Foundations for the Social Studies SIG, Bulletin 6, 57-64, 1995.

Murra, Wilbur, personal communication to Cleta Galvez-Hjornevik, December 8, 1977.

Nelson, M. R. "Some Possible Effects of World War II on the Social Studies Curriculum." Theory and Research in Social Education 14, no. 4 (1986): 267-75.

Price, R. A. "Teaching Students in Social Studies Classes to Guard Against Propaganda." In Education Against Propaganda, NCSS 7th Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1937.

Price, R. A. "Social Education Asks: Responses of Twenty-five Former Presidents of NCSS." Social Education 34, no. 8 (1970): 802-12, 868.

Stevens, M. P. "What To Do in the Social Studies." The Instructor 52, no. 5 (1943): 65.The Social Studies Look Beyond the War: A Statement of Postwar Policy. Washington, D.C.: The National Council for the Social Studies, 1944.The Social Studies Mobilize for Victory. Washington, D.C.: The National Council for the Social Studies, 1942.

Vitcha, L. "Wartime Social Studies in Junior High School." Social Education 7, no. 5 (1943): 315-18.

Wesley, E. B. Transcribed interview with Edgar B. Wesley, conducted by James L. Barth and Sam Shermis at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. The History of Education Oral History Collection, The University of Texas at Austin, 1968-1969.

Sherry L. Field is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Science Education at the University of Georgia. Her research includes the history of social studies and social studies teaching, historical thinking of children, and the nature of social studies instruction. Lynn M. Burlbaw is Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas A& University. His research includes the foundations of education and curriculum, social science teaching and learning, and geography knowledge acquisition.

 

Maturation and Change: 1947-1968

By Dale Greenawald

Tumultuous domestic and international events rocked the United States between 1947 and 1968. The bright hopes for peace that emerged from the ashes of World War II collapsed under the glacial pressures of an increasingly frigid cold war. The proliferation of new nations created unparalleled opportunities and dangers as the U.S. and U.S.S.R. competed for global power, and occasionally strayed across the boundary between cold and hot war. Conflict and stresses characterized the domestic environment, as rabid anti-Communism, the civil rights movement, and opposition to the war in Vietnam tore the American social fabric asunder.
Against this backdrop NCSS grew from a small department of the National Education Association with a part-time editor and one full-time paid staff member into the salient professional organization in social studies. This article seeks to examine the organizational growth and evolution of NCSS while also attending to its relationship with the transformative changes occurring in the international and domestic arena around it. Specifically, the paper considers the response of NCSS to the collapse of colonial empires, the cold war, McCarthyism, the civil rights movement, and the war in Vietnam.

1947: The Way We Were

The Organization

Mindful of these limitations, let us begin examining the structure, concerns, and issues of NCSS in 1947. Erling Hunt, one of the founding fathers of NCSS, was editor of Social Education, a thin yellow journal containing forty-eight pages in each edition. The first five volumes for 1947 represented his final year as editor, and in the fall of that year after brief service by Ralph Adams Brown as Acting Editor, Lewis Paul Todd joined NCSS as a part-time editor who worked primarily from his home in New England. Merrill F. Hartshorn had joined NCSS as business manager and full-time employee in late 1943 (NCSS 1970). Together, these strong individuals were to leave their stamp on NCSS during the coming decades. Membership reached an all-time high in 1947 and was expected to reach 10,000 before the end of 1948 (Todd 1947). Slightly less than 1000 interested souls had attended the twenty-sixth annual meeting in Boston, the previous November (NCSS 1947). W. Linwood Chase, the President, held a professorship at Boston University, while Stanley Dimond, the first Vice-President, directed a nationally prominent citizenship project emphasizing intergroup relationships for the Detroit Public Schools. W. Francis English, the Second Vice-President, and a professor from the University of Missouri, rounded out the NCSS officers. Three university professors, four employees of public schools, two lab school teachers and an educational consultant who was a former NCSS President constituted the Board of Directors. These eight men and four women, assisted by Hartshorn, worked in conjunction with a business meeting open to all NCSS members attending the annual convention to direct the affairs of the organization.
The budget had climbed to $44,000 from $16,000 in the few years since 1943-1944. NCSS created student and contributing memberships, and dues were raised by 33 percent, from $3.00 to $4.00, effective March 1, 1948, to respond to increasing financial pressures caused primarily by growing costs for member services driven by accelerating inflation and increasing requirements for member services (NCSS 1970; NCSS 1948). Members of the Council received $6.00 to $8.00 worth of services for their $3.00 payment (Todd 1948). The financial relationship between NCSS and AHA for the publication of Social Education did not dissolve until 1955 (Vanaria 1970). During 1947, NCSS also moved into more spacious and better equipped quarters that NEA provided at no cost in its headquarters in Washington.

An analysis of the articles in the 1947 volumes of Social Education indicates that peace education and issues of international education easily comprised the single most popular topic. This finding deviates slightly from the work of Chapin and Gross (1970) when they analyzed the 1947-1948 volumes, but that may reflect the aggregation of U.S. and world history in their study as well as the fluctuations typically found between years. Likewise, these pages reflected a strong interest in and concern for citizenship and attention to race relations typically referred to as intergroup or intercultural relations. Several articles also dealt with the deplorable quality of teacher education, scholarly histories on a range of topics, a plethora of activities or program descriptions, and suggestions for improved evaluation and assessment.

International Issues

It is worth noting the interest of Social Education and presumably, NCSS members in international issues and racial equity/civil rights. Titles such as "World Unity and the Social Studies" (Perdew 1947) and calls for international supervision of education across the globe (Kahn 1947) reflected a somewhat pollyannish view of the post-war world. But the recent horrors of World War II and the dawning of the atomic age loomed large in the minds of those who expressed these yearning hopes. Burr W. Phillips (1947), in his 1946 NCSS Presidential address, "Our Responsibilities and Obligations," captured a sense of a commonly held view of the challenges facing America when he remarked:

We see:
1. An America and a world moving into an uncharted future under new and often untried leadership, with but a vague direction and goals;
2. A world making one more attempt to set up an organization which will guarantee a righteous and permanent peace for generations to come, but a world that is at the same time bewildered by the implications of scientific advance that threatens to destroy the very genius that has produced it;
3. A world that wants peace with all of its heart, but a world in which empire is still set against empire, religion against religion, ideology against ideology, and race against race. Hatred, mutual fear, distrust, and intolerance are motivating forces at a time when forbearance and understanding are needed if civilization itself is to survive .... (32)

The pages of Social Education continued for several years to express hope for the UN and a one-world perspective before they succumbed to a more nationalistic and stridently anti-communist perspective. By 1948, an increasing number of articles were turning attention to the threat of the U.S.S.R. with titles such as "What Shall We Teach About Russia?" The selection of Howard E. Wilson, a leading figure in NCSS, to be the NCSS representative on the United States Commission for UNESCO also revealed NCSS's support for a more peaceful post-war order. NCSS was one of seven groups invited to join the Commission, and the election of Wilson as one of fifteen members of the Commission's Executive Committee enhanced NCSS's visibility.

Civil Rights

While international issues offered one area of interest for NCSS, race and intergroup relations provided another. A variety of articles on intergroup relations struck a tone similar to that asserted by Allen King (1947), a member of the Social Education Executive Board and leader in social studies education in Cleveland, when he wrote:

Intergroup relations is one of the most difficult as well as one of the most important matters with which the schools have to deal ... The removal of prejudice and intolerance from American life is not a task which will be achieved easily or quickly. (60) Concern for harmony and justice at the domestic and international levels appeared to be major components of the goal of social studies education. Linwood Chase (1948) in his 1947 presidential address, "Our Common Concern," suggested that social studies teachers had a common goal. "Stated simply, this goal is the development of intelligent, responsible citizens" (8).

The Social Studies

While no one argued with the goal of developing intelligent, responsible citizens, the range of topics in Social Education and philosophies underlying them implied that there was no clear agreement about what this goal meant or the best vehicles for achieving it. Resolutions passed at the 1947 St. Louis annual meeting called upon NCSS to deplore "... recurring instances of the denial of civil liberties and human rights to religious, racial, economic, and political minorities...and urge(d) our national and state governments to enact legislation effectively guaranteeing to each individual without discrimination: freedom to work, to express opinions, to hold meetings, to vote, and the opportunity to secure an education." A second resolution called for Congress to pass legislation providing "...federal aid to education as a necessary step toward the realization of the goal of equal educational opportunity for all." Another resolution called for academic freedom to study controversial issues and "...urge(d) administrators, public-spirited community citizens, acting as individuals and through organizations, to oppose the increasing upsurge of pressure groups seeking to restrict full and impartial discussion in the social studies classroom."

Other resolutions called for non-partisan support for the European Recovery Program, congressional efforts to counteract inflation, a plan allowing displaced persons to enter the country, and rejection of universal military training. Additional resolutions called upon Council members to intensify attempts to support UNESCO, the Commission for Educational Reconstruction, and the Overseas Teacher-Relief Fund, for cooperation with "...the World Organization of the Teaching Profession to help promote understanding and unity among educators..." and for the Council and members to act as leaders in advancing peace and world understanding by working with other professional organizations, encouraging teacher and student exchanges, and urging at all levels the inclusion of curricular materials that advanced world understanding and cooperation. Finally, there was an appeal to institutions of higher education to improve the quality of their teacher preparation programs (Todd 1948, 6).

The picture of NCSS in 1947 that emerges from these sources is one of an expanding professional educational organization suffering financial growth pains, an organization that engaged from a liberal perspective the domestic, international, and educational issues of the day and that had ties to the discipline-based professional organizations in its field as well as to broader educational organizations such as NEA. A loosely defined civic/citizenship education that included behavioral and social sciences with a strong and occasionally contradictory emphasis on history and solving contemporary issues provided a wobbly pole star for the organization, which included members with diverse views on what social studies is and should do.

A Decade of Curricular Drift, Democratization, and Protecting Democratic Principles

International Issues

During the late 1940s and early 1950s the patterns seen in 1947 continued. NCSS continued to participate in UNESCO and cooperated with the UNESCO Relations Staff of the Department of State. In 1950 NCSS worked with UNESCO in developing "The Treatment of International Agencies of Cooperation in World and U.S. History Textbooks." NCSS agreed to participate in the U.S. German textbook study. In 1956, NCSS secured funding from William L. Breese and launched a multiyear curriculum and staff development project, the Field Study in Education for International Relations, in Glens Falls, New York. This project generated significant interest in international relations and provided a focus for numerous articles in Social Education.

As tension with the Soviets increased, some responded with increased calls for educating world citizens (Schneideman 1948). Articles on the UN, peace, and citizenship abounded. Other articles, however, included a cold-war perspective in their rationale for studying non-Western regions. No longer was the focus simply on peace, good will and international understanding. Instead, as territories escaped from the yoke of colonialism, competition with the Soviets and national security demanded greater knowledge of these newly emerging nations so that the U.S. could act in a more informed and intelligent manner (Todd 1958).

Not only did the Cold War influence interest in world affairs, it also stirred ultra-patriotism at home. In the late 1940s, the vanguard of McCarthyism was afoot, and the response within NCSS was swift. Academic freedom increasingly concerned NCSS. In October of 1948, the editor called for renewed vigilance in defense of academic freedom (Todd 1948b). The Executive Secretary reported that "... a good deal of time this year (1949) went into combating attacks on teaching materials" (Hartshorn 1950, 82). The specter of communism, especially communism in the schools, loomed ever larger. In April of 1950, Lewis Paul Todd penned an introduction to the journal in which he defended the annual report of the U.S. Commissioner of Education that unequivocally recommended that communists not be employed in schools (Todd 1950a). In November of that year the NCSS Board approved a strong statement in favor of academic freedom in "The Public School and the American Heritage" (NCSS 1951).

The problem of academic freedom, if anything, grew and in 1952 Social Education published a bibliography of references that provided information about attacks on teachers and teaching materials (NCSS 1952). And in 1953 the Board asked the president to organize a "watch dog" committee to help the Council's Committee on Academic Freedom by collecting information about situations where freedom to teach had been threatened or restricted. In cooperation with ASCD, AASA and NAASP, NCSS distributed a kit of materials designed for use with critics of public education. In December of 1956, the NCSS Committee on Academic Freedom published in Social Education a position statement entitled "Action to Uphold Freedom to Learn and Freedom to Teach." Virtually every year, NCSS adopted one or more resolutions supporting academic freedom. Despite the best efforts of NCSS, however, the fear of controversy had a chilling impact on treatment of contemporary issues (Starr 1994). Moreover, the long-standing emphasis on social studies as the guardian and promoter of enlightened citizenship encouraged the belief that education had a vital role to play in guarding against censorship (Fisher 1958).

Civil Rights

Intergroup relations remained a major area of concern within NCSS. In 1949, NCSS received grants of $4,900 from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and $2,400 from the American Jewish Committee to prepare and print two publications, America's Stake in Human Rights and Improving Human Relations (NCSS 1950). These documents were strong testimony to NCSS's commitment to defending human dignity. NCSS took another major step in this area when it conducted its first annual meeting south of the border states in 1952 after receiving assurances that hotel facilities in Dallas would not be segregated. In the wake of the 1954 Brown vs. the Board of Education Supreme Court case and the resulting national uproar, NCSS supported the position of NEA and called for recognition
"... that integration of all groups is more than an idea. It is a process that concerns every state and territory in our nation. All citizens are urged to approach this matter of integration in the public schools with the spirit of fair play and goodwill which has always been an outstanding characteristic of the American people. It is our conviction that all problems of integration in our school are capable of solution by citizens of intelligence and reasonableness working together in the interest of national unity for the common good of alquot; (Hartshorn 1955a, 127). In 1955, NCSS adopted an even more strongly worded resolution calling upon "...teachers and the public to use the opportunity to study the meaning of democracy and its applications to the implementation of the Supreme Court rulings" (Todd 1956, 53). Social Education continued to provide coverage of civil rights Supreme Court cases and clearly reflected NCSS's support for equal rights (U. S. Supreme Court 1958). The strong position taken by NCSS on civil rights was adopted at significant threat to the organization, because southern members, while supportive, warned that if NCSS adopted too strong a position, they would lose funding to attend national meetings (Starr 1994).

The Social Studies

The diverse range of topics addressed in the pages of Social Education each month confirmed the absence of any sharp conception of the field of social studies. Lewis Paul Todd, in his "Editor's Page" in May 1950, made explicit the lack of a clear and broadly accepted view of social studies when he wrote, "But all would readily admit that we are the victims of a great and growing confusion. We are suffering from intellectual indigestion, the result, if we may say so, of gulping our food too quickly... One of the pressing issues that concerns all of us is the place of history and other 'content' courses in a social studies program that has become as broad as life itself" (Todd 1950b, 195). President John Haefner, reflecting on the era, recalled that social studies was plagued by the "creeping curriculum." "At this time anything that didn't fit anywhere else got dumped into the social studies. I objected to the fact that we were having to absorb things that weren't necessarily within our field" (Haefner, interview). The old rubric of citizenship seemed to provide a vague, over-arching umbrella that offered some unity, and exciting civic education projects like the one at Columbia garnered much attention.

The Organization

While the pages of Social Education continued to address familiar topics, the organizational patterns and issues reflected both continuity and change. Membership grew, inching toward 5,000 in 1948, when 1,500 attended the annual conference. By 1955, membership had grown to 6,000 (Hartshorn 1955b). A strong membership base grew in the West, and in 1951 Julian Aldrich became the first NCSS President to visit western councils on a speaking tour. NCSS had truly become a national organization. The first Who's Who in Social Studies rolled off the presses in 1951 to encourage greater communications within the growing social studies family. NCSS continued the tradition of cooperation by engaging in joint presentations and other cooperative ventures with a variety of professional organizations including AHA, APSA, NEA, AEA, NCGT, NCTE, ASCD, NAASP, the Mississippi Valley Historical Assn., and AASA.

As NCSS grew, so did concerns for making the organization more accessible and democratic (Hartshorn 1955b). NCSS abolished single-candidate elections for the vice-presidential position in favor of competitive elections. No longer were the top positions within the organization viewed as just rewards for long years of service. Julian Aldrich, the 1952 President, was the first president to reach office through this competitive process. In addition, in 1949 the Board appointed a Committee on Election Procedures to review NCSS election processes. In 1952, after years of discussion and debate, the Board released the Committee's report, which called for a constitutional amendment to conduct elections through mail ballots rather than as part of the business meeting. This proposed change, though rejected, was a direct attempt to ensure broader input from all members and to reduce the disproportionate influence of members living in the vicinity of the annual meeting (Dimond 1953).

Another Committee on Election Procedures was immediately appointed, and the 1954 Board adopted election criteria intended to promote geographic and gender distribution and the involvement of classroom teachers. These criteria applied to the nomination of officers for 1956 and reflected a concern with maintaining balanced representation and avoiding a disproportionate impact from states close to the annual meeting. These criteria barred anyone residing in the state or states adjacent to where the annual meeting was held from being nominated for second Vice-President (Hartshorn 1955c).

Another attempt at democratization could be seen in the change in procedures for introducing resolutions. Prior to 1954 all resolutions were supposed to be drafted and presented at the business meeting. After 1954, a committee was appointed to receive resolutions from all members, including those unable to attend the annual meeting, and to prepare and present them at the business meeting. Equally significant, after years of discussion and sometimes strenuous debate, in 1955 an amendment to create a House of Delegates reached the floor of the annual business meeting. The new House was established, and contained representatives of state, local, and regional councils. Representation initially was granted for any council having ten members who also belonged to NCSS. Subsequent representatives would be appointed for each 100 members who also enrolled in NCSS. The amendment eventually passed, and the first House of Delegates convened at the 1957 annual meeting in Pittsburgh. Its powers were limited to being an advisory body to the Board of Directors, who set its agenda.

The 1955 meeting was the first that involved all officers of NCSS in the increasingly demanding planning process instead of the latter simply being the task of the vice-president alone. Committees were reorganized into three categories: Committees of the Board, Standing Committees, and Ad Hoc Committees. A Membership Planning Committee was created as a committee of the Board in 1951, and a Resolution Committee was created in 1950. The Ad Hoc Committee for Relations of State and Local Councils to NCSS became a standing committee in 1951. Other committees that appeared to address special projects and needs were those for Business Sponsored Materials, a Commission on a Policy Statement for NCSS (1950), an Election Procedures Committee (1947), and committees for Relations with Other Societies, Student Exchanges Within the U.S. (1950) and the Study of German Textbooks (1950). The creation of committees for Resolutions, Election Procedures, and Relations of State and Local Councils to NCSS clearly reflected the concern about Council governance becoming increasingly unwieldy as the organization grew.

Despite these attempts to increase participation, remarks in John Haefner's presidential report suggested that NCSS continued to have difficulty reaching classroom practitioners. He stressed, "We must make every effort to close the gap between the National Council and the classroom teacher, who is already struggling with these formidable problems. There is an attitude abroad that the National Council is, after all, a relatively small elite, composed largely of supervisors and college people engaged in teacher education. That it is a closed corporation whose officialdom reproduces itself by the process of mitosis... That much of what the Council advocates is so hopelessly beyond what many classroom teachers can do that frustration inevitably sets in" (Haefner 1954, 53).

Thus, an expanded and increasingly democratized NCSS and its journal, Social Education, moved into the beginning of the middle decades of the twentieth century, mixing child-centered bits of progressive education with esoteric articles about steamboats on the western rivers and Bavarian blue laws, calls for critical thinking with techniques for group guidance and the core curriculum. An unstable mix of academic, child-centered, and social efficiency models of education competed to define the curriculum (Jenness 1990). The organization responded to domestic and international events by being a staunch advocate for civil rights, aggressively defending First Amendment rights and academic freedom, and supporting expanded knowledge of the world as a first line of defense for democracy.

The Renaissance of the New Social Studies: Organizational Response and Development for Professionalization

The Social Studies

During the early 1950s an increasing chorus of voices began to demand change in American education (Hertzberg 1981; Haas 1977). Frequently cast in terms of the Cold War, criticisms were expressed that the U. S. was falling behind the Soviets because of an inadequate educational system. An NCSS resolution of November, 1957, expressed this linkage by observing, "The American people are confronted today with the grave issue of the survival of our civilization and possibly of mankind itself. To meet this challenge, many proposals are being advanced for altering the content of American education" (NCSS 1958, 53). Although the reformers directed their ire initially toward math, science and reading programs, social studies soon became a target. Critics derided progressive education as a mishmash of feel-good, life adjustment instruction that left students deficient in basic knowledge of content. Even within the leadership of NCSS there existed a feeling that the current curriculum was dated. Future NCSS President Samuel McCutchen noted that NCSS in 1955 had established a Committee on Concepts and Values to "...prepare a guide to the selection of content in the social studies. The effort was fully due, for it had been nearly a generation since the Commission on the Social Studies of the American Historical Association had issued its 16-volume report" (McCutchen 1958, 73). A future NCSS President captured the degree of this lack of focus when he described the social studies curriculum as, "...Man, we don't know where we're going, but we're sure on our way" (Wronski 1959, 215).
Responding to the critics, the National Science Foundation by 1957 was supporting six major national projects to improve instruction in math and science, and more received funding in subsequent years (Haas 1977). These discipline-based projects stressed the concepts, generalizations, theories, and methodologies-the structure-of the disciplines. These academically oriented efforts fit well with the demands of Arthur Bestor, a leading critic of U.S. education, who called for training in the scholarly disciplines for all students. He particularly endorsed the study of history as an antidote to what he saw as the contemporary focus of social studies (Alilunas 1958, 238-40; Jenness 1990, 125; Hertzberg 1981, 90). The launching of Sputnik in 1957 only amplified the expression of concern and seemed to provide proof that U.S. education was inferior to that in other nations. The editor of Social Education captured the depth of this concern when he wrote, "...the battle for the free world is being fought this very minute in the schools of the United States and may very well be won or lost in America's classrooms" (Todd 1959a). Despite the rising chorus of demands for change in social studies, the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) ignored the social studies.

The drive for reform received a major impetus in 1960 when Jerome Bruner published The Process of Education, a report of a 1959 NSF-funded meeting of university scientists, government agencies, and private foundations at Wood's Hole. Bruner identified the basic principles underlying the reform movement in math and science and provided guidelines for university, governmental, and foundation reformers interested in the social studies (Bruner 1960). Professors of education, classroom teachers and NCSS remained peripheral to the gathering national forces of reform.

The New Social Studies

The critics of the social studies and the burgeoning reform movement soon engulfed the social studies and engendered momentous changes that promised to redirect the field. During the late 1950s Dr. Edwin Fenton, a recent Harvard history Ph.D. graduate then teaching at Carnegie Institute of Technology, and Lawrence Senesh, a recognized economist at Purdue University, began piloting new instructional content and strategies with public schools (Haas 1977, 20-21). Using rich discipline-based original sources, inquiry strategies, an emphasis on concepts, and higher level thinking skills, these pioneers laid the foundation for what was to be known as the New Social Studies.
These ground-breaking works were paralleled by developments within NCSS. By the late 1950s articles were appearing in Social Education that advocated conceptual teaching, teaching the methodology of each discipline, and other hallmarks of the New Social Studies (Dimond 1958; Wronski 1959). Charles R. Keller, Director of the John Hays Fellows Program, provided additional impetus to this movement in 1961 when he called for a revolution in social studies in an article in the Saturday Review (Keller 1961).

The early efforts quickly were joined by a plethora of curriculum development projects. Beginning in 1961 the National Science Foundation had funded two projects in anthropology and sociology. In the fall of 1962 the U.S. Office of Education launched Project Social Studies and solicited and funded diverse proposals. By 1963 seven new curriculum centers had been established with three to five years of funding at universities, and more were proposed for the next year. By 1965 the number had risen to twelve, and by 1967 there were more than fifty national curriculum development projects and countless efforts underway at the district level (Haas, 58). Most national projects were university and discipline-based and led by academic scholars who had established reputations in their field and power bases in their professional organizations, although the two conferences funded in the initial Project Social Studies cycle included papers by noted educators and some NCSS leaders (Smith 1963; Fenton 1994; Dante 1994; Turner 1994). NCSS was not at the center of either the curriculum development or the teacher training that supported it and had little direct influence on the direction in which these projects were driving the field (interview with Edwin Fenton by author; also letter from Gerald Marker to Lewis Paul Todd, Marker 1966).

NCSS and NDEA

Although much of the initial impetus for reform came from outside of NCSS, the organization continued to respond in myriad ways to the loud calls for academically rigorous reform. These responses not only facilitated and interacted with the New Social Studies, but they frequently accelerated the professionalization of social studies. First, NCSS became a vocal advocate for according social studies the same level of priority given to math and science. At the annual meeting in Cleveland, in 1957, only a month after the launching of Sputnik, NCSS passed a resolution requesting increased attention to social science and humanities education. The resolution argued that while math and science certainly deserved improved instruction for national security reasons, "the most serious issues of our time lie in the field of human affairs. For solutions to these problems, we must look to the social sciences and the humanities ... sustained and vigorous attention must be given to the role of the social sciences in the education of American youth" (NCSS 1957). Similar appeals for federal funding for social studies were issued again in 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1963, and for international education in 1967.
In 1961 the 1958 National Defense Education Act came up for renewal in Congress. The administration had recommended the addition of English and physical education, but social studies remained absent. In response, NCSS launched an intensive effort to get the social studies included (Hartshorn 1961). NCSS argued that "...in the current crisis confronting our country, sustained and vigorous attention must be given to the fundamental role of the social studies in the education of American youth; ... a most vital ingredient in our educational program for our defense calls for an informed body of citizens, loyal to our traditions, who possess the ability to think clearly, and who can choose wise courses of action on the issues confronting our nation" (296-97). But once again the decisionmakers in Washington did not think that social studies was a priority. In 1964 when NDEA legislation was to expire once more, NCSS launched another concerted effort to have social studies included. Testimony was given before House and Senate Committees, and members were urged to write to their Congressmen. Moreover, the House of Delegates appointed a group to draft a resolution opposing other legislation that would have extended the existing NDEA program (NCSS 1970). When the legislation was reauthorized, it included funds for materials and teacher training in history, geography, and civics, a development that has striking parallels to the current federal involvement in standards.

The reauthorized NDEA also included funds for hiring state social studies coordinators. These funds, together with all of the interest generated by the New Social Studies, provided a foundation for the creation of the Council of State Social Studies Supervisors (CS4), an organization that since the mid-1960s has consistently exerted a leadership function within NCSS. The increase from seven or eight state social studies specialists in 1960 to almost thirty in 1965 demonstrates the importance of NDEA money in creating CS4 (Hartshorn 1965a).

Professionalism

In addition to calling for funding to improve social studies, NCSS's support for the developing professionalization of social studies instruction meshed nicely with attempts to promote discipline-based academic rigor. NCSS continued its long-standing endorsement of having well-trained and qualified instructors in social studies classrooms. The Committee on Policy Statement in 1958 in Social Education advocated efforts to strengthen the quality of teachers (Hartshorn 1962a). In 1963 the Board passed a resolution calling upon local districts to have only certified teachers in social studies classes. The House of Delegates raised the issues of teacher standards again in 1967 (Hartshorn 1968).
A variety of other signs of growing professionalization were also congruent with the reform movement. The 1961 House of Delegates discussed social studies classroom standards and equipment and called on NCSS to issue a How To Do It bulletin describing the required planning, organization and equipment. And in 1963 the NCSS President engaged in preliminary discussions with AASA and NASSP about the formation of a joint committee to work on how to raise standards for social studies instruction.

Not only was NCSS concerned about the quality of teachers and resources in the classroom, but it recognized that the conditions in which those teachers worked also impacted the quality of social studies instruction. In 1963 the Board passed a resolution calling for all social studies teachers to have a minimum of one hour daily free from teaching or supervisory duties to be used for instructional preparation (Hartshorn 1964, 157). It called for adherence to accreditation standards for class size and recommended that in any event classes not exceed thirty students.

Scholarship

In addition, NCSS sought to introduce teachers to the latest academic scholarship. The 1958 yearbook, New Viewpoints in the Social Sciences, provided only one indication of this approach (Hertzberg 1981). In another attempt to bolster academic quality, NCSS launched in 1958 a joint project with the American Council of Learned Societies to identify the essential knowledge that a high school graduate should have in each social science discipline. Jack Allen, NCSS President during 1957, indicated that he and Merrill Hartshorn were able to get NCSS leaders to coordinate visits to Washington in order to begin planning, but there seemed to be little active participation by members of learned societies (Allen 1976; NCSS 1970, 809). Dr. Howard Wilson, during the 1958 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, called on the Board to form a National Commission on the Social Studies to make recommendations about the social studies curriculum. The Board responded favorably, resolving to "...attempt to involve the scholarly social science organizations on the strongest basis possible, aiming toward joint sponsorship if that can be obtained, and to move ahead with all possible speed" (Hartshorn 1960, 78). The NCSS Board directed the Executive Secretary to approach the American Council of Learned Societies. The result, The Social Sciences and the Social Studies, was published in 1962 and offered a helpful guide to the social science disciplines, but did little to clarify the ultimate purpose of social studies education, reflected little understanding of the historical evolution of the social studies, and seemed unaware of the realities of schools, according to some critics (Hertzberg 1981; Jenness 1990). Others were more positive and even saw in these efforts the beginning of the New Social Studies (Allen 1976; NCSS 1970, 809).

Defining Goals: Citizenship Education vs. Discipline-Based Instruction

Efforts to define the field more clearly continued. In 1958, the Committee on Concepts and Values published a summary of its report in Social Education that sought to identify key social studies learning, but it contained a curious blend of clear discipline-based goals with others that seemed more child centered or oriented toward social efficiency (McCutcheon 1958). The 1963 House of Delegates provided additional evidence of the ongoing concern for clarity of focus when it passed a resolution requesting that the President of the United States be asked to appoint a National Commission on the Social Studies (Hartshorn 1964, 159).
By 1959, articles were calling for a "...radical shift in emphasis in social studies from the what of the social sciences to the how of the social scientist" (Wronski 1959, 215). The drive for discipline-based social science instruction, however, did not go unchallenged. In 1958 Social Education published "A Statement on the Social Studies," a product of the Statement of the Committee on Policy that was established in 1951 to produce a sequel to the previous statement, "The Social Studies Looks Beyond the War." This document reflected the new internationalism when it declared that the task before social studies was "to avoid the provincialism of evaluating other peoples solely on the basis of our own values and experiences" (Wronski 1958, 66).

The appointment of an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Citizenship Education in 1958 also suggested that citizenship education, rather than individual disciplines, remained a primary concern of the organization. The theme of citizenship received additional emphasis in Shirley Engle's classic "Decision Making: The Heart of Social Studies Instruction" (Engle 1960). Jack Allen's 1958 presidential address, "Of Teaching and Social Intelligence," while recognizing the appropriateness of disciplinary instruction to achieve some objectives, generally called for integration. "To achieve other objectives, the boundaries need to give way to interrelationships. The end is social understanding, the means disciplinary knowledge fashioned in a variety of ways" (Allen 1959, 201-2). The 1962 NCSS President, Samuel McCutchen, joined the debate in his presidential address, "A Discipline for the Social Studies," in which he argued that the centrifugal forces atomizing the field boded ill for the future. He predicted a power struggle for curricular space with the best funded victors capturing the high school curriculum. Instead of an infinite fragmentation and its accompanying conflict and lack of focus, McCutchen passionately argued for a discipline of social studies. Not only did McCutchen fear competition among the disciplines, he also opposed the fragmentary, discipline-specific goals suggested by a social science orientation (McCutchen 1963).

The 1962 NCSS annual meeting reflected the hurricane of change buffeting the field. According to the post-conference report, "What we have is a multitude of pressures and proposals that are leading in many directions. The social studies are in a crisis, and some sort of revolution is coming, but no one can yet say what is going to happen or even what should happen" (NCSS 1963, 85). The confusion reigned not only over the content of the field and how it should be taught; it reached into the very heart of NCSS. Because much of the leadership for social studies reform came from academics in universities, NCSS lacked a clear role in the curriculum development that was occurring throughout the country. The 1962 Board authorized the creation of a Project Planning Committee "...to clarify the role of NCSS in curriculum development" (NCSS 1963, 87).

The discussion continued in earnest in the April 1963 edition of Social Education as social studies educators examined various issues related to the new trends. Shirley Engle suggested a curriculum organized around key, recurring concepts, while Byron Massialas provided an inquiry model to help students develop those concepts. Lawrence Metcalf critiqued traditional social studies and called for a problem-centered approach that would emphasize critical examination of closed areas of American society. Paul Hanna responded to the lack of articulation in the traditional curriculum by offering an expanding horizons model to determine scope and sequence. The final contributor, Thomas C. Mendenhall, outlined problems confronting the field, cautioned against rapid and drastic responses, and advocated a gradual integration of social science concepts into a historical and anthropological curricular framework.

The November 1963 issue of Social Education included a report on the seven Project Social Studies Centers that were funded in the initial round, and the entire issue of Social Education of April 1965 was devoted to reports from the original Project Social Studies Centers and an overview of the Centers established in 1964. This issue provoked a series of responses, generally critical, in the October 1965 issue. While the discipline-oriented, process-oriented, intellectually rigorous characteristics of many of the New Social Studies projects had captured the interest of many NCSS members, they had not persuaded all. William Cartwright predicted that history would have a salient place in the curriculum, although contemporary social sciences would make inroads; that broad general courses, narrowly focused courses, integrated and interdisciplinary courses would be tried and fail (Cartwright 1966).

Debate raged over whether social studies meant the integration of the social science disciplines or merely provided an umbrella under which the disciplines could function independently. The practical impact of these discussions frequently was the replacement of interdisciplinary courses such as POD with courses like discipline-based economics, sociology, or government (Alilunas 1964). Despite criticism and on-going debate, by 1967 the New Social Studies dominated social studies reform efforts, but not everyone had climbed on the reform bandwagon (Hertzberg 1981, 115; Starr 1994). The forces that sought to harness the latest discipline-based research and methods in the service of an interdisciplinary education for civic participation and problem solving continued to press their case in the pages of Social Education (Powell 1963; Engle 1965; Shaver 1967).

The Organization

Although curricular reform dominated much of the discussion in social studies, NCSS continued to develop as a professional organization. Late in 1957, an assistant to the Executive Secretary, Ernest Baum, Jr., was hired to work with local associations and the Committee on Professional Relations, and to promote the activities of the Council (Hartshorn 1958a). Finances strained by higher printing costs and declining revenue from publications continued to be a problem (Hartshorn 1958b). By 1958 membership had climbed to 6,866 from 6,146 the previous year, and by 1960 had risen to almost 8,000 (Hartshorn 1959a, 1961b). The year 1960 also witnessed a 25 percent increase in joint membership dues received through affiliated councils that the Executive Secretary attributed to intensive work by the local and state councils (Hartshorn 1961b). Membership continued to climb, reaching 9,980 for fiscal year 1961-62. By 1966 membership and subscribers to Social Education had risen to over 20,000 (Hartshorn 1967). Slightly more than 3,000 educators flocked to Chicago to attend the 1961 Annual Meeting, and subsequent meetings during the 1960s consistently reported attendance around 3,000 (Hartshorn 1962b). The 1966 meeting in Cleveland was the largest to date with 3,265, and the impact of the New Social Studies was visible in the increase to 150 in the number of exhibitors who attended (Hartshorn 1967). By 1967, NCSS had undertaken a revision of the agenda of the annual meeting. An early week set of activities, including school visits and historical and cultural tours, was added as well as time for CS4, CUFA, local social studies specialists (the future SSSA), the NCSS Board and NCSS Resolutions Committee (NCSS 1967). Not only did membership and conferences expand, but the size of Social Education grew as well. In 1961 a typical issue contained 48 pages, but by 1965 it had swelled to 74, and some issues reached over 100 pages (Hartshorn 1966a).
The relationship with NEA required NCSS to propose a constitutional amendment in 1960. Prior to 1960, NEA bylaws required that members of any NEA department also be members of NEA, but the provision was not enforced. Debate raged in NEA concerning membership requirements for NEA departments, and the bylaws were changed to allow each department the right to establish membership qualifications, if the elected officers of that department were NEA members. In response, NCSS proposed to modify its constitution to require elected officers to be NEA members and to encourage all members to join NEA (Hartshorn 1961b). In 1967 NEA again rejected a requirement for members of departments to be NEA members, but in 1968 did require departments to select within a year one of three classifications of affiliation, department, national affiliate, or associated organization (Hartshorn 1969).

Other technical amendments to the Constitution and the Articles of Incorporation occurred in 1964 in order to meet IRS non-profit guidelines. The purpose of NCSS was defined as being to "...promote the study of the problems of teaching the social studies to the best advantage to the students in the classroom; to encourage research, experimentation, and investigation in these fields; to hold public discussions and programs; to sponsor the publication of desirable articles, reports, and surveys; and to integrate the efforts and activities of all those who have similar purposes through the efforts and activities of its members and their cooperative activities with others interested in the advancement of education in the social studies" (Hartshorn 1965b, 100).

Initiated in response to a growing and more widely dispersed membership, the early post-World War II attempts at democratization and efforts to provide opportunities for greater member involvement did not easily lead to additional advances. The failure in 1954 to adopt a constitutional amendment that would have created a mail ballot electoral system that allowed members who did not attend the annual conference to vote continued to pose a barrier to democratic operation of NCSS. In 1958, NCSS began again to address the topic by creating an ad hoc committee to review procedures for the nomination and election of officers. In 1961, the committee's recommendation to adopt a constitutional amendment to conduct elections by mail was approved, and the amendment was presented to the membership (Hartshorn 1961b, 106). The first election by mail was conducted in 1963 and produced a return rate of 27 percent (Hartshorn 1964, 155).

The establishment of the House of Delegates also posed numerous problems, and the Board of Directors met for over 30 hours during the 1957 meeting. The Board expressed concern over the number of resolutions being introduced and decided to set an example by introducing only one resolution (Hartshorn 1958b, 82-83). The movement toward expanded participation by members received formal recognition when the 1958 House of Delegates adopted a manual on the operation and functioning of the House of Delegates. In 1965, the House also appointed an ad hoc committee to study apportionment of delegates, and in 1966, the Committee reported to the House. Representation, as then distributed, meant that large councils were under-represented while small ones were over-represented. The committee recommended that the current system be retained, but to ensure continuity delegates should serve three-year terms. Another resolution created a House of Delegates Steering Committee to help organize and facilitate its meetings. By 1967, the operations of the House took another step when a parliamentarian and professional secretary were added.

As the House of Delegates worked to establish operating procedures and institutional mechanisms, it also struggled to define its relationship with the Board. By 1961, the Board felt compelled to remind the House of Delegates that it was an advisory body that had no legislative authority and that its resolutions were not binding unless the Board concurred. In 1964 a delegate introduced a resolution to make the House of Delegates the "supreme policy-making body of NCSS," during the national convention, but the discussion ended after an agreement to support Board decisions and to call for an ad hoc committee to study ways to expand the responsibilities of the House of Delegates (Hartshorn 1965c, 174). In 1966, another amendment to have the House assume responsibility for conducting the business meeting failed, as did a proposal to require the House and Board to meet jointly. At the 1967 meeting the Executive Secretary explained the board was making changes that would qualify the annual House of Delegates meetings as NCSS annual business meetings, but that constitutionally the House of Delegates could not assume control of the business meeting for two years (Hartshorn 1968, 283-86). What is clear is that the House continued to experience growing pains as it tried to carve out a more assertive role within NCSS.

Another indication of the continued efforts to democratize NCSS appeared in a constitutional amendment proposed in 1965 that any member in good standing had the right to engage in debate at any business meeting, but that only members of the House of Delegates had the right to vote. Likewise, the decision in 1967 that all committees would be required to publish in Social Education an annual report represented an attempt to inform and involve an increasingly dispersed membership. Finally, in 1966 the committee structure was reorganized to help the organization to be more responsive to changing needs. Standing committees were responsible for council "housekeeping," and advisory committees consisted of a small steering group that worked with an advisory group of members (NCSS 1970, 811).

The 1959 House of Delegates also continued earlier discussion of how to facilitate coordination among local, state, regional councils and NCSS (Hartshorn 1958c, 128; 1959b, 126). The Board approved a House recommendation that affiliation be extended to any council with ten members who were also NCSS members, but that ten percent of the members must be NCSS members within five years if affiliation was to be continued. But in 1960, the House asked the Board to postpone the ten percent membership requirement and requested that a committee develop revised affiliation plans before the 1961 conference (Hartshorn 1961c, 200).

In 1962 the NCSS President initiated a survey of affiliated councils. Sixty-six responded and recommended that NCSS work for better integration of efforts among the councils and improved communications between NCSS and its affiliates (Hartshorn 1963, 152). The 1963 House of Delegates made a series of suggestions ranging from making awards to recognize outstanding teachers to getting "air time" for educational media (Hartshorn 1964, 156). In 1964 the problem of bringing NCSS to local units was again raised, and President Isadore Starr told the House of Delegates that funds were currently available to allow NCSS officers to address local organizations (Hartshorn 1965c, 173).

NCSS Responds to National and International Developments

As NCSS continued to grow and adjust organizationally, it constantly found itself responding to the swirling currents of national and international events: the Cold War, continued international tensions, concerns for national security, and ultraconservative attempts to control teachers and the educational process. When the Cold War burst into the flames of Vietnam, NCSS was involved in responding to the conflict that tore American society asunder. At home, NCSS continued its tradition of staunchly defending First Amendment rights and academic freedom in a wide variety of contexts throughout this period.

International Issues

Although the continuation of the Cold War during the late 1950s and 1960s fueled demands for educational reform, tension with the Soviet Union remained visible in NCSS. Its impact could be seen in both blatant and subtle ways in the pages of Social Education and in NCSS's response to academic freedom and First Amendment issues raised by ultraconservative attacks. Writing in the "Editor's Page" in January 1959, Todd repeated Dulles's warning that "the United States has never in its peacetime history faced a greater challenge than the one now confronting it in the war of trade and foreign aid that the Soviet Union is carrying on throughout the world" (Todd 1959b, 3). To counteract the Soviet threat, the editor exhorted schools and teachers to improve students' and citizens' understanding of U.S. foreign policy, foreign aid, and world economic issues (Steibel 1959). In 1960 at the 40th Convention, diverse scholars warned of Soviet threats to the Mediterranean, Africa, the world in general, and to the U.S. position in the U.N. (Bartlett 1961).
In addition to such frequent reminders that the freedom of the world was hanging in the balance, the expanded coverage of non-Western areas also indicated the growing importance of these areas as the super powers competed. For example, the entire April 1959 issue of Socia#16;Education examined the Far East, and Editor Todd decried the lack of attention to the Great Leap Forward (Tood 1959c). In 1961, one issue focused exclusively on the Middle East, while another was devoted to Africa. The November 1962 issue addressed peace through law, and the January 1966 issue dealt with International Cooperation Year. In addition, NCSS continued its involvement in the Glen Falls Project for teaching international affairs until the project ended in June of 1960. It continued to cosponsor the Washington-U.N. summer institute with NEA. A scanning of virtually any year of Socia#16;Education during the 1960s reveals scholarly articles on world areas, bibliographies, and occasional calls for increased attention to areas and issues outside of the U.S.

In 1966, Social Education published its first articles dealing with the emerging conflict in Vietnam. One critiqued U.S. policy while another provided a scholarly analysis of protest (Taylor 1966; Boulding 1966). These were followed in March with a rationale for U.S. intervention (Schwartz 1966). A second article in the same issue provided some general themes for helping students to understand crises in Asia (Wilson 1966). The October issue of Social Education provided details of government publications on Vietnam and information for conscientious objectors.

Academic Freedom

The domestic ramifications of the Cold War also influenced NCSS. McCreary captured the sentiments of the era and the essence of the problem when he wrote:
A serious crisis threatens American education, particularly social studies in secondary schools. The crisis springs from the national anxieties and frustrations of the Cold War and recalls previous periods of tension, such as the concern for teacher loyalty after World War I and the strictures of McCarthyism during the Korean War... The crisis can lead to a serious corruption of the curriculum, or, if handled wisely with courage and insight, may be a milestone of progress and growth... Americans are now an anxious and insecure people. They have suffered many frustrations and fears since World War II, though enjoying an unprecedented material prosperity. The Cold War occupies more and more of the emotional life of many people-even as it dominates an important part of our political and economic life and military posture... The average citizen is not only frustrated but puzzled and confused by the course of events. He feels helpless and inadequate-powerless to do anything to improve the situation... People who are unable to solve their most vexing problems try to ensure that the new generation will be better prepared to settle matters. Americans now seem justifiably concerned with how our schools can help to sustain our liberties and values... Certain extreme right-wing organizations, including the John Birch society, have frankly proclaimed their intention to infiltrate schools... and bring their point of view to the fore in classrooms. (McCreary 1962, 177-184)
Raymond Muessig and Vincent Rogers (1964) offer additional evidence that the fanatical attacks on schools continued in the cold war period and, if anything, seemed to become even more one-sided than before.

Mounting attacks on academic freedom took a variety of forms and led NCSS to continue its tradition of aggressive support for academic freedom. The Committee on Academic Freedom presented to the 1959 House of Delegates a resolution to protect the right of teachers to join any organization except those advocating the overthrow of the government. After debate and modification, the House urged Congress to enact the Murray-Metcalf Bill. This bill was a response to increasing state legislation that was requiring public employees to file an affidavit naming all organizations to which they belonged or contributed regularly. The Board also adopted this resolution.

In 1960 the Board tackled the latest infringement when it voted to urge the repeal of the 1958 Loyalty Affidavit for students obtaining loans under the 1958 National Defense Education Act. The discussion in the 1960 House of Delegates about how to respond to administrative and community pressure over the teaching of controversial issues offered additional evidence of the enduring and salient nature of this topic (Hartshorn 1961c). Another amendment supporting academic freedom was passed by the House of Delegates in 1961. Two years later, it called for a new statement on teaching controversial issues. At the same meeting, the Board passed a resolution that called for NCSS to "...establish a permanent committee with adequate financial and professional support whose function will be to go to the aid of social studies teachers whose academic freedom is under attack" (Hartshorn 1964, 158). In 1964, the House of Delegates, in an Academic Freedom Resolution jointly sponsored by NCSS and AHA, called for presenting an accurate and truthful picture of the past, for limiting the basis of criticism of teachers, textbooks and instructional materials to accuracy and scholarship, for seeing attempts to impose a single point of view as "hostile" to the goals of American education, and for the formation of Academic Freedom Committees in the local, state, and regional councils of NCSS. A second jointly sponsored resolution encouraged publishers to present controversial issues from diverse perspectives (Hartshorn 1965c, 174-75).

In 1961, racism and academic freedom issues combined in the case of teachers who faced termination for supporting desegregation. Social Education, as part of its ongoing series on salient Supreme Court cases, highlighted this issue in November of 1961 (Starr 1961). Additional issues of Social Education maintained NCSS's tradition of providing information about freedom of expression and assembly and academic freedom (Lunstrum, 1962a).

Civil Rights

During the late 1950s and 1960s NCSS continued its energetic promotion of equal rights for all Americans. Surprisingly, given the salience of civil rights issues in U.S. society at this time, the coverage of civil rights issues and articles about instructional strategies or programs for promoting tolerance became less visible in Social Education. But Social Education continued to include articles that addressed issues of racism, although they were not as frequent as previously (Lundstrum 1962b; Franklin 1964; Cooke 1964; Cuban 1967, 478-82).
A review of the 1962 Annual Meeting describing the tone of the conference noted, "... social studies teachers have a special responsibility to awaken the American people to the need for further growth of freedom at home and cooperation with others in the extension of freedom abroad" (Wass 1963, 84). The 1963 Convention took an even more formal position on the matter, when the House and Board passed a resolution calling for "... textbooks and other instructional materials which deal frankly, accurately, and honestly with the historical development of minorities in our country..." (Hartshorn 1964, 158). And at the Annual Meeting in 1964, the House of Delegates passed a resolution calling for social studies teachers to "...accept the leadership and moral responsibility to espouse and teach that which is consistent with the democratic ideal and to urge full implementation of the civil rights law which was passed by the United States Congress" (Hartshorn 1965, 175).

This progression of resolutions in support of civil rights probably had its most significant practical impact in 1968, when the House passed a resolution concerning "star editions." These were edited versions of national textbooks that were intended for use in the South. They generally deleted positive references to Blacks and in other ways perpetuated Jim Crow views. The resolution criticized star editions "...as being opposed to the letter and spirit of democracy...," called upon NCSS members who authored texts to pledge that their materials would not be issued in star editions, requested that districts notify publishers that they would not purchase any text that was available in an integrated and nonintegrated version, and asked that the federal government withhold funds for the purchase of these materials (Hartshorn 1969, 483).

Reflections

Between 1947 and 1967, NCSS epitomized the historians' twin pillars of continuity and change. In responding to the domestic and international issues of the day, NCSS consistently fought discrimination and ardently protected First Amendment rights and academic freedom. As Editor Dan Roselle noted, "As NCSS developed it did a beautiful job in these areas. These issues were addressed by NCSS in several ways" (Roselle 1993). In addition, NCSS acted as an advocate for social studies education. When Office of Education programs ignored social studies, NCSS was instrumental in securing funding for improvement in history, geography and government, although NCSS was unable to induce the Office of Education to see the field as an independent discipline that integrated the social sciences, perhaps, in part, because NCSS itself lacked consensus.
But organizationally, the NCSS of 1967 bore little resemblance to the NCSS of 1947. It was larger and had a national membership. In response to its increased size and geographic dispersal, it had developed slowly and painfully more democratic organizational structures and procedures. Throughout the period, however, some members expressed concern that classroom teachers, who constituted the bulk of social studies professionals, generally provided no more than half of the membership of NCSS, a situation that meant that university professors, curriculum coordinators, and department chairs, had a disproportionate representation. NCSS did ensure that classroom teachers had opportunities for representation on boards and committees and periodically launched recruiting efforts to induce teachers to join and become more active in the organization.

NCSS had taken steps to raise standards for social studies teachers, enhance their content and pedagogic knowledge, improve their working conditions, ensure that social studies garnered the support, attention and curricular space it deserved, and generally encourage professionalization of the field. These professional developments fit nicely with the academically based New Social Studies.

But at its heart, NCSS lacked clarity of purpose and a universally accepted definition of its field. The New Social Studies had brought forth once again the question of the definition of social studies, and there was still no consensus. Instead as Editor Roselle observed,

Now we were going to find a key that would unlock all doors and set us off from other disciplines. One social studies educator declared social studies should focus on decision-making. Another said the chief task of social studies should be making good citizens. Another said the social studies should concentrate on the development of critical thinking. Another said the primary job of the social studies must be to teach about values... Meanwhile I'm tempted to say outside in the real world most teachers continued to teach history or government or economics or geography or sociology or anthropology, although a few did present an integrated social studies course. And most important of all, many social studies teachers were also doing the very things that NCSS was nagging them to do. They were trying to get students to think, to have sound values, to be good citizens. But the demands of NCSS position statements written in esoteric language were most confusing to them. Many teachers simply did not understand what the National Council for Social Studies was. They still do not. Many didn't understand what the term social studies meant. They still do not. The enrollment in NCSS grew a little, but nowhere as rapidly as it should have. Today we should have 100,000 members. (Roselle 1993)

References

Alilunas, L. J. "Bestor and the Social Studies." Social Education 22, no. 5 (1958): 238-40.

-----. "Whither the Problems of Democracy Course?" Social Education 28, no. 1 (1964): 11-14.

Allen, J. "Of Teaching and Social Intelligence." Social Education 23, no. 5 (1959): 201-202.

-----. Interview. Texas A & M Oral History Program, 1976.Bartlett, Hall, and Committee. "Report from Boston." Social Education 35, no. 2 (1961): 89-96.

Boulding, K. "Reflections on Protest." Social Education 40, no. 1 (1966): 28-33.

Bruner, J. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960.

Cartwright, W. "The Future of the Social Studies." Social Education 30, no. 2 (1966): 79-100.

Chapin, J., and R. Gross. "A Barometer of the Social Studies: Three Decades of Social Education." Social Education 34, no. 8 (1970): 789.

Chase, L. "Our Common Concern." Social Education 12, no. 1 (1948): 8.

Cooke, R. J. "Books: The Continuing Quest for Equality." Social Education 28, no. 8 (1964): 481-94.

Cuban, L. "Urban Schools and the Negro." Social Education 31, no. 6 (1967): 478-82.

Dante, Harris. Letter to author, August 25, 1994.

Dimond, S. "Notes and News: Proposed Amendment to NCSS Constitution Regarding Election Procedures." Social Education 17, no. 7 (1953): 345-47.

-----. "The Role of Generalization in Teaching the Social Studies." Social Education 22, no. 5 (1958): 232-34.

"Editor's Page: Resolution Passed by the National Council for the Social Studies, November 29, 1957." Social Education 22, no. 2 (1958): 53.

Engle, S. "Decision Making: The Heart of Social Studies Instruction." Social Education 24, no. 7 (1960): 301-306.

-----. "World History in the Curriculum." Social Education 29, no. 7 (1965): 459-63.

Fenton, Edwin. Interview with author, Pittsburgh, January 17, 1994.Fisher, J. "Teaching the Nature of Communism." Social Education 22, no. 4 (1958): 187-90.

Franklin, J. H. "The Dignity of Man: Perspectives for Tomorrow." Social Education 28, no. 5 (1964): 257-65.

Haefner, John. "Candid Observations: Remarks by the President." Social Education 28, no. 2 (1954): 52-58.

-----. Interview, November, 1976.

Hartshorn, M. "Notes and News." Social Education 14, no. 2 (1950): 81-82.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 21, no. 3 (1955a): 127.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 19, no.5 (1955b): 226.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 19, no. 6 (1955c): 270.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 22, no.1 (1958a): 33.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 22, no.2 (1958b): 81.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 22, no. 3 (1958c): 128.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 23, no. 2 (1959a): 79.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 23, no. 3 (1959b): 126.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 24, no. 2 (1960): 78.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 25, no. 2 (1961b): 102-106.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 25, no. 3 (1961c): 200.

-----. "Statement on HR 6774." Social Education 25, no. 6 (1961a): 295-97.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 26, no. 2 (1962b): 97.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 26, no. 4 (1962a): 207.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 27, no. 3 (1963): 151.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 28, no. 3 (1964): 157.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 29, no. 2 (1965b): 100.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 29, no. 3 (1965c): 174.

-----. "NDEA's Title II and the Improvement of Instruction." Social Education 29, no. 7 (1965a): 419-20.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 30, no. 2 (1966a): 117-26.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 30, no. 3 (1966b): 189-91.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 31, no. 3 (1967): 238.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 32, no. 3 (1968): 283-86.

-----. "Announcements and Events." Social Education 33, no. 1 (1969a): 89-92.

-----. "Notes and News." Social Education 33, no. 4 (1969b): 477-96.

Haas, J. D. The Era of the New Social Studies. Boulder, Colo.: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education and the Social Science Education Consortium, 1977.

Hertzberg, H. W. Social Studies Reform 1880-1980. Boulder, Colo.: Social Science Education Consortium, 1981.

Jenness, D. Making Sense of Social Studies. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1990.

Kahn, Lothar. "The Cart, the Horse, and International Education." Social Education 11, no. 1 (1947): 19-21.

Keller, C. "Needed: Revolution in the Social Studies." Saturday Review (September 16, 1961).

King, A. Y. "Intercultural Education in the Cleveland Social Studies Program." Social Education 11, no. 2 (1947): 60.

Lunstrum, J. "Controversial Issues, School Policies, and Reflective Thinking." Social Education 26, no. 4 (1962a): 189-92.

-----. "Controversial Issues, School Policies and Reflective Thinking: Part II." Social Education 26, no. 5 (1962b): 244-46.

Marker, G. To Lewis Paul Todd. "Letters." Social Education 30, no. 6 (1966): 430.

McCreary, E. "The Crisis Threatening American Education." Social Education 26, no. 4 (1962): 177-84.

McCutchen, S. "Concepts and Values as the Basis for Content." Social Education 22, no. 2 (1958): 73-80.

-----. "A Discipline for the Social Studies." Social Education 27, no. 2 (1963): 61-65.

Muessig, Raymond, and Vincent Rogers. "Teaching Patriotism at Higher Cognitive Levels." Social Education 28, no. 5 (1964): 266-70.

NCSS Committee on Academic Freedom. "Action to Uphold Freedom to Learn and Freedom to Teach." Social Education 20, no. 8 (1956): 371-74.

NCSS Committee on Teacher Education and Certification. "Report of the NCSS Committee on Teacher Education and Certification." Social Education 23, no. 5 (1959): 228-30.

"NCSS 47th Annual Meeting Seattle, Washington." Social Education 31, no. 6 (1967): 515.

"Notes and News." Social Education 11, no. 1 (1947): 32."Notes and News." Social Education 12, no. 1 (1948): 31.

"Notes and News." Social Education 16, no. 2 (1952): 78-79.

Perdew. "World Unity and the Social Studies." Social Education 11, no. 3 (1947): 115-17.

Phillips, B. W. "Our Responsibilities and Obligations." Social Education 11, no. 1 (1947): 8-9.

Powell, T. "Reason and Necessity in the Social Studies." Social Education 27, no. 8 (1963): 431-35.

Roselle, Dan. Interview with Ben Smith, October, 1993.

Schneideman, R. "Educating World Citizens." Social Education 12, no. 7 (1948): 306.

Schwartz, H. "Crisis in Asia." Social Education 33, no. 3 (1966): 155-58.

Shaver, J. "Social Studies: The Need for Redefinition." Social Education 31, no. 7 (1967): 588-96.

Smith, G. "Project Social Studies." Social Education 27, no. 7 (1963): 357-410."

Social Education Asks." Social Education 34, no. 8 (November 1970): 804.

Starr, I. "Recent Supreme Court Cases: Freedom of Association." Social Education 25, no. 7 (1961): 357-60.

Starr, Isadore. Interview with author, Phoenix, Ariz., April 9, 1994.

Steibel, G. "International Understanding and Understanding the International." Social Education 23, no. 1 (1959): 12-16.

Taylor, H. "Peace, War, and Education." Social Education 30, no. 1 (1966): 7-12.

"The Public School and the American Heritage." Social Education 15, no. 2 (1951): 82.

Todd, L. "Editor's Page." Social Education 11, no. 7 (1947): 244.

-----. "Editor's Page." Social Education 12, no. 1 (1948a): 6.

-----. "Editor's Page: Who Burns Books?" Social Education 12, no. 6 (1948b): 245.

-----. "Editor's Page: A Page from the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education." Social Education 14, no. 4 (1950a): 149-50.

-----. "Editor's Page." Social Education 14, no. 5 (1950b): 195.

-----. "Editor's Page." Social Education 20, no. 2 (1956): 53.

-----. "Editor's Page: Running Scared." Social Education 22, no. 4 (1958): 149.

-----. "Editor's Page." Social Education 23, no. 1 (1959b): 3, 39.

-----. "Editor's Page." Social Education 22, no. 2 (1959a): 53.

-----. "Blind Spot." Social Education 23, no. 4 (1959c): 151-52.

Turner, M. J. Interview by author, August 3, 1994, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court. "Supreme Court Opinion on Little Rock Schools, September 29, 1958." Social Education 22, no. 8 (1958): 371-80.

Vanaria, L. M. "Social Education: The Mission of a Professional Journal." Social Education 34, no. 8 (1970): 786.

Wass, P., "What Happened in Philadelphia? Review of the 42nd NCSS Convention." Social Education 27, no. 2 (1963): 84.

"What Happened in Philadelphia: Review of the 42nd Convention." Social Education 27, no. 2 (1963): 85-92.

Wilson, N. "Key Factors in Asian Crises." Social Education 30, no. 3 (1966): 159-62.

Wronski, S. "A Statement on the Social Studies." Social Education 22, no. 2 (1958): 66.

-----. "A Proposed Breakthrough for the Social Studies." Social Education 23, no. 5 (1959): 215-18.

Dale Greenawald is an educational consultant based in Colorado. He has published extensively in the field of social studies education and recently served on the faculty of the University of Northern Colorado.

 

Struggling Toward Professionalization: 1968-1982

By William G. Wraga

Four themes seem to highlight the activities of NCSS members who made special efforts to further the professionalization of the social studies field from 1968 to 1982. During this period, members of NCSS worked (1) to constitute a more professional organization, (2) to establish the hallmarks of a profession for the field of social studies, (3) to find and exercise a professional voice on social studies-related issues, and (4) ultimately to forge a professional identity for social studies educators.

Building A More Professional Organization

From 1968 to 1982, NCSS members endeavored to constitute a more professional organization that was increasingly responsive to its membership. NCSS at first altered and later severed its affiliation with the National Education Association (NEA). It revised its committee structure, amended its constitution, and expanded its other activities.

NEA Affiliation

Like other professional organizations such as the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), NCSS was affiliated as a department of NEA early in its history (Hartshorn 1969). Until 1960, NEA by-laws had mandated membership in NEA for department members, but the measure was never enforced. In 1960, NEA by-laws were amended to require membership only of department officers. In the mid-1960s some quarters of NEA began lobbying for the reinstatement of the original provision requiring NEA membership for all department members; such an amendment was narrowly defeated by the NEA Representative Assembly in 1967. This was an issue of some gravity for NCSS because at the time roughly 50 percent of NCSS members enjoyed concomitant membership with NEA and mandatory membership for all was seen as possibly having a dire impact on NCSS membership (Hartshorn, 1968, "Report of the Executive Secretary to the House of Delegates, 1968"). Indeed, at its November 1968 meeting in Washington, DC, the House of Delegates passed a motion reaffirming its opposition to the compulsory membership of NCSS members in NEA ("Summary of Minutes of NCSS Twelfth Delegate Assembly, 1968").

In 1968 the NEA Representative Assembly adopted an amendment that provided for three types of relationships with NEA: Department, National Affiliate, and Associated Organization. At its April 1969 meeting, the NCSS Board of Directors approved a change of NCSS status from a Department to a National Affiliate of NEA. A proposed constitutional amendment was read at the 1969 Business Meeting in Houston and approved at the 1970 Business Meeting in New York (NCSS, Series 6, Box 1). The resulting amendment changed Article III, Section 7, of the NCSS Constitution to declare NCSS a National Affiliate of NEA and stated that NCSS, in accordance with NEA policy, would merely "encourage" its members to hold membership with NEA. In 1975 two amendments to the NCSS Constitution severed NCSS affiliation with and obligations to NEA and, finally, the 1977 revision to the NCSS Constitution removed the provision that elective officers hold membership with NEA. Fifty-six years after its founding, NCSS became an independent professional organization.

Committee Structure

In 1968, NCSS revised its committee structure with the result of providing increased representation for and responsiveness to members in Council decision making and activities. Standing Committees became Advisory Committees and were "enlarged in the interest of wider representation and included a Board member in the interest of better communication," as NCSS President Ralph W. Cordier put it ("Report of the President to the House of Delegates, 1968"). In May 1977 the Board of Directors added Special Interest Groups (SIGs) to its recognized affiliates in an effort to provide an institutional mechanism for members "to deal with their own special subject-matter interest-for example, psychology, geography, sociology" ("Minutes of the 20th Delegate Assembly," 447). By the end of the era, then, NCSS had constituted an organization that included Operational Committees to perform basic organizational functions, Advisory Committees to advise the House of Delegates on social studies-related issues, Ad Hoc Committees for special tasks, Affiliates such as the Social Studies Supervisors Assoication, known as SSSA (founded in 1968), the College and University FacultyAssembly (CUFA), the Council of State Social Studies Supervisors (CS4), and Special Interest Groups (SIGs).

Constitutional Amendments

Concern with institutional efficacy and responsiveness is indicated by the relatively heavy activity to amend the NCSS Constitution during the period 1968 to 1982. Between its inception in 1921 and 1965, the NCSS Constitution had undergone one substantial revision and six amendments; between 1968 and 1978 the NCSS Constitution underwent one major revision and five amendments ("The Constitution of the National Council for the Social Studies" 1978).

The three constitutional amendments approved in 1968 had the effect of removing the editor of Social Education from the Board of Directors and designating that the business meeting run in conjunction with the House of Delegates meeting. The 1970 amendment, mentioned above, revised the status of NCSS from a Department to a National Affiliate of NEA. Amendments approved in 1971 provided for comprehensive and student memberships, stipulated that the composition of the Board of Directors represent the various professional membership categories, and identified procedures for electing Board members. Two amendments approved in 1975 finally severed NCSS affiliation with and obligations to NEA, and changed the title of Executive Secretary to Executive Director. The major revision of the NCSS Constitution in 1977 warrants greater attention not only because of the relative magnitude of the changes, but also because of implications of these changes.

The 1977 revision was initiated by President Stanley Wronski in 1974 and provided for input from all constituents of NCSS. Among the principal concerns that prompted the revisions were the following (Mehlinger 1977, 4): (1) redefining the term "social studies"; (2) increasing the influence of the House of Delegates; (3) increasing the involvement of classroom teachers (who accounted for over half of NCSS membership); (4) eliminating sexist language; (5) deleting references to NEA; and (6) providing increased continuity on the Board of Directors. These changes clearly were motivated by a desire to improve the organization's responsiveness to its members and to culminate the process of distancing the Council from NEA begun a decade earlier.

The concern for revising the definition of the term "social studies" spoke to the wider issue of developing a professional identity. Until this time, the NCSS Constitution had read: "The term 'social studies' is used to include history, economics, sociology, civics, geography, and all modifications or combinations of subjects whose content as well as aim is predominantly social." The revised Constitution read as follows:

The term "social studies" is used to include the social science disciplines and those areas of inquiry which relate to the role of the individual in a democratic society designed to protect his and her integrity and dignity and are concerned with the understanding and solution of problems dealing with social issues and human relationships. (Mehlinger 1977, 4)

At the end of the 21st Assembly of the House of Delegates an amendment was proposed that suggested an editorial change to the definition of social studies which resulted in Article I, Sec. 1, which was approved in 1979, reading as follows:

The term "social studies" is used to include the social science disciplines and those areas of inquiry which relate to the role of the individual in a democratic society. The social studies are designed to protect the individual's dignity; they are concerned with the understanding and solution of problems dealing with social issues and human relationships.

The revised definition is notable for at least four reasons: (1) it abandoned the singular focus of the earlier definition on curriculum organization; (2) insofar as it substitutes the term "social science disciplines" for a list of specific disciplines, it reduces the emphasis on the separate subjects; (3) it implies that subject disciplines are important insofar as they relate to the protection of individual rights in the context of democratic society; and (4) it implies that subject matter need be applied to understanding and resolving societal problems. It is possible that this revised definition of the social studies marked the beginning of a trend toward a more progressive conception of the field and away from a traditional academic definition.

Wider Role for the House of Delegates

A recurrent theme in the debates surrounding the changes in committee structure and the various amendments to the NCSS Constitution was the issue of the relationship between the House of Delegates and the Board of Directors. The former was founded in 1957 to facilitate communication between the Board and affiliates. Composed of representatives from the affiliates, it can be considered the body most directly representative of the wider membership. According to the NCSS charter, the function of the House of Delegates is to advise the Board of Directors on matters of Council business and policy. Members of the House occasionally lobbied for greater input into Council decisions and, despite the occasional effort that superseded the charter and subsequently failed, the trend during this period was toward increased influence of the House in Council affairs.

Other Membership Services

Other specific activities aimed at serving the membership and therefore leading to an increasingly professional organization can also be cited. Examples include the introduction of the council's official newsletter, The Social Studies Professional, in October 1968 and the creation in the late 1970s of the Field Services Board to assist NCSS affiliates. As the flagship journal of the organization, Social Education served as the primary vehicle for catering to membership needs and interests. The range of features presented in Social Education during this time period-including a section reserved for elementary social studies, periodic research supplements, the inauguration of the Classroom Teachers' Idea Notebook in 1970, and the introduction of Notable Children's Tradebooks-indicated not only a commitment to meeting diverse membership needs, but also reflected and represented an effort to appeal to both researchers and practitioners on all grade levels. Together, these activities suggested a special concern to make the organization increasingly responsive to its membership.
This effort did not guarantee the development of a professional identity for the social studies field. James P. Shaver defined this dilemma in a letter to Social Education editor Daniel Roselle (January 2, 1975), in which he expressed the sense "that Social Education, with the occasional appearance of the Research Supplement, has become devoted to classroom application and a representation of social science or other 'pure' material that might be of use to classroom teachers" [emphasis in original]. Shaver suggested that the move "toward the 'practical,' nitty-gritty bits of teaching and toward articles by specialists outside of social studies education providing content of use to social studies teachers" would possibly lead the field to lose sight of "questions of purpose and impact." Did efforts to serve a wide range of interests strengthen the field or contribute to the fragmentation of its variegated constituents? Did these efforts cater to specialized interests at the expense of establishing a cohesive professional identity?

A Professional Membership

During the period 1968 to 1982, members of NCSS engaged in activities that had the effect of establishing several hallmarks of a social studies profession. At this time, widely accepted criteria for a profession included: (1) an identifiable and unique public service; (2) an advanced program of specialized knowledge; (3) the application of skills at a high cognitive level; (4) a high level of responsibility and latitude in decision making; and (5) a self-regulating membership abiding by a code of ethics (Lieberman 1956). Council activities that served to address these criteria included developing professional standards for teachers, formulating a code of ethics for teachers, establishing guidelines for social studies curriculum, and issuing position statements on a variety of social studies-related issues.

Professional Standards and Code of Ethics

At the 1968 meeting of the House of Delegates the Committee on Standards for Social Studies Teachers expressed concerns about the "low quality of some of the individuals who are presently teaching social studies" and recommended that the Executive Committee create an ad hoc committee to generate professional standards for social studies teachers (Minutes of the 13th Delegate Assembly, 482). In 1969 the Board of Directors appointed such a committee, consisting entirely of teachers, that presented its document to the Steering Committee of the House of Delegates, which endorsed and approved the new standards in March of 1971 and published them in the December 1971 issue of Social Education (847-52)
The standards outlined nine areas of professional concern to social studies teachers: professional preparation programs; qualifications of teacher educators; the screening of applicants to preservice teacher education programs; certification; recruitment and assignment; aspects of teaching; the role of the teacher in the local community; favorable conditions for teaching and learning; and the "teacher as a professional person." Ironically, while the standards sought to provide a sense of commonality among social studies educators, they could have had the effect of maintaining, if not emphasizing, differences as well. Regarding professional preparation programs, for example, the standards identified requirements in the areas of general education, academic specialization, and professional education, emphasizing the second area by calling for knowledge of three social sciences and research experience in one of them for secondary teachers. Similarly, the standards stipulated that teacher educators should be "subject-matter specialists rather than generalists." While these provisions may well have contributed to the fragmentation of the social studies field, the standards clearly were a stab at both promoting a professional membership and fostering a sense of professional identity for the field.

A number of years later, the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics generated "A Code of Ethics for the Social Studies Profession," which was based on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Professional Ethics. Published in the October 1981 issue of Social Education, the preface to this document recognized that "the adequate functioning of the social studies profession requires that its members (1) establish, publish, and disseminate a code of ethics that makes explicit the ethical principles by which the profession is guided in its practice, and (2) explain, interpret, and justify those principles to the society served." The Code of Ethics enumerated six ethical principles for the social studies that emphasized issues of quality instruction, reaching every student, upholding the civil rights explicated in the U.S. Constitution, the "free contest of ideas" in classrooms, scholarship in teachers' work, and the teacher's role in the school and community. The development of both the Code of Ethics for the Social Studies Profession and the Standards for Social Studies Teachers were self-conscious efforts to enhance the professionalism of the social studies field.

Guidelines for Social Studies Curriculum

In addition to establishing professional standards and a professional code of ethics, NCSS members attempted to identify a professional body of knowledge for the social studies. In 1969, the Board of Directors charged a task force with the responsibility of generating curriculum guidelines for the social studies. The first version of the Social Studies Curriculum Guidelines was published concomitantly with the Standards for Social Studies Teachers in Social Education in December 1971. "One of the important responsibilities of professional organizations," wrote NCSSPresident John Jarolimek, "is that of articulating and clarifying precisely what constitute soundly based professional practices." Again, however, the effort to provide cohesiveness to the field was potentially undermined by a recognition of its existing fragmentation. As the document attempted to identify common curriculum guidelines, it issued the caveat that "diversity in social studies education is healthy and productive" (854). The document presented a rationale for social studies education in terms of the knowledge, abilities, values, and social participation required of citizens in a democracy, presented eight guidelines for evaluating social studies programs, and included a checklist.
A second, revised version of the Curriculum Guidelines was published in the March 1979 issue of Social Education and was notable for the addition of a ninth guideline: "Social studies education should receive vigorous support as a vital and responsible part of the school program," apparently reflecting the impact of the basics or minimum competency movement on the social studies.

Position Statements on Social Studies Issues

During the period 1968 to 1982, various committees of NCSS produced position statements on a variety of social studies-related issues. These statements can be seen to have had the cumulative effect of elaborating the content presented in the Curriculum Guidelines and contributing to the identification of a professional body of knowledge essential to the achievement of a sense of identity for the field of social studies. Paradoxically, the elaboration also involved increased specification which, while arguably contributing to the depth of the field's body of knowledge, may well have contributed to the continued fragmentation of the field as well.

A Professional Voice

During the period spanning 1968 to 1982, members of NCSS exercised a professional voice on a range of social and educational issues that related to the social studies. This was achieved through House of Delegates resolutions, Social Education features, NCSS involvement with educational issues, particularly pertaining to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Essentials statements, and through efforts to create a political action arm of the Council.

House of Delegates Resolutions

Every year, in addition to Council-related business, the House of Delegates considers resolutions pertaining to timely social and educational issues. As noted earlier, the House of Delegates is the body most directly representative of the wider NCSS membership, since it is composed of delegates from the affiliates. While no statistics on the proportions of delegates who were school teachers and who were university professors were available, it is probably reasonably accurate to presume that a considerable majority of delegates were classroom teachers and/or department chair people and supervisors, since state affiliates obviously contribute the overwhelming number and proportion of delegates to the House and usually are dominated by school teachers. If this is true, it is interesting to examine the resolutions that pertained to social issues that the House carried during this period, a representative sample of which is presented in Table 1. Virtually all of these resolutions represent political positions that would be characterized as liberal. No resolution pertaining to a social issue passed during this era can be said to represent a conservative viewpoint. Resolutions pertaining to educational issues belie a decidedly liberal bias as well (see Table 2).
It is also instructive to examine proposed resolutions pertaining to social issues that failed to win support of a majority of delegates. During the period 1968 to 1982, three such resolutions failed, and one was tabled in 1980 and then carried in 1981. The latter involved opposing Nesteacute; Corporation's advertising in professional journals; reasons for the delay of its adoption (in identical form) were not apparent from archival materials. In 1977, an emergency resolution which put the Council "on record in opposition to discrimination in the employment of school personnel based upon individual and private sexual preferences ... failed to merit consideration for lack of a two-thirds vote" ("Minutes of the 21st Delegate Assembly," 415, 418).

Earlier in 1970, two resolutions failed to carry the House. The essence of one read as follows: "The NCSS stands opposed to such a foreign policy which serves the interests of a small corporate elite at the expense of millions of human beings ... [and] ... will launch an intensive educational program through its publications and conventions to expose its members to the real purpose of current U.S. foreign policy." The other maintained that "sexism is manifested in our curricula's lack of attention to the historic struggle and importance of women, and in the predetermined subservient societal roles our teaching system dictates for them" and that "racism is manifested in our white and middle-class-oriented curriculum; [and] in the ethnocentrically determined standards of satisfactory performance and in the lack of community control in our schools." It further maintained that "these processes are not mistakes but rather serve the interests of privileged sectors of our society in whose interests it is to perpetuate a society with such a racist and sexist nature." This resolution called upon NCSS to "allocate resources to develop an intensive series of programs or workshops at the next NCSS convention to investigate the historical and contemporary role of women in creating not only equality for women but a new society" ("Minutes of the 14th Delegate Assembly," 330).

Significantly, these failed resolutions represent positions well to the left of the generally liberal resolutions carried by the House during the period. It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that the House of Delegates typically struck a political posture that can be characterized as moderate-liberal. This conclusion is inconsistent with Leming's hypothesis (1988) that, while the professoriate is liberal in its perspectives on education and society, the practitioner culture of the social studies field is distinctly more conservative. Even if we grant that the House of Delegates was representative of the wider NCSS membership, however, it may not be safe to presume, of course, that NCSS membership is representive of all practicing social studies educators. These resolutions may simply also reflect the sociopolitical climate of the day. Nevertheless, the inconsistency between the House of Delegates resolutions and Leming's thesis may warrant further examination.

Social Education Features

NCSS also exercised a professional voice on a wide range of contemporary social and educational issues through special features in Social Education. They represented a high-profile effort to provide social studies educators with information, perspectives, and resources that would help them grapple with these issues in their local settings. Some of these issues are discussed below.

Professional Influence and Activism

While the Council exercised a professional voice on a variety of social issues, it reserved most of its resources for speaking to educational issues that were viewed as vitally connected to the social studies and, therefore, to the efficacy of NCSS as a professional organization. Several notable examples of NCSS activity during this period will illustrate this tendency.

NCSS and NAEP. NCSS sought to impact aspects of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on two occasions during this period. In 1972 the Council submitted a proposal to the Education Commission of the States (ECS) to interpret data from the 1969-70 and 1970-71 NAEP instruments, and consider the utility of NAEP programs as models for local assessment efforts. The proposal reflected educators' concerns about the prospect of NAEP leading to a national curriculum and about possible irresponsible uses of "raw" data, maintaining that, "What is most needed at this time is interpretive reporting with educational implications and not simply dissemination of assessment raw data and statistical information" ("A Proposal ...," 1972, 2). With minor amendments, the proposal was accepted by ECS.

Jean Fair, who chaired the Steering Committee for the project, noted in her July 16, 1973, quarterly report that all of the tasks were proceeding on schedule except for those that involved analyses of social studies test data that had yet to be released to NCSS by NAEP. By the fall of 1973 data had still not been released, and NAEP officials had apparently subtly attempted to influence NCSS's independent judgments of the measures and data (Fair to Steering Committee, October 26, 1973). By mid-May, Fair estimated that NAEP had yet to release one-half to three-quarters of the data it had promised (Fair to Hartshorn, May 31, 1974). Meanwhile, a series of articles representing the work of the project's investigators was published in the May 1974 issue of Social Education, without the data analysis of Benjamin Cox, who had been assigned the responsibility of analyzing the data on behalf of NCSS. Less than two weeks later, an NAEP official advised Cox that they were unable to forward any further data and that they wished to terminate NCSS's contract as of June 30, 1974. In her letter to Hartshorn, Fair expressed apprehensions about the feasibility of arriving at substantive interpretations working with incomplete data.

The second encounter with NAEP occurred in the late 1970s. Anna Ochoa advised the Board of Directors that legislation passed in 1978 would require testing every five years in basic skills and in other areas "as the need arises" (Ochoa to Board, August 1, 1979). She reported that the director of NAEP was recommending that the social studies-related section run only every eight years, with basic skills assessed every four years. The result was that the Citizenship/Social Studies Committee would have to negotiate with the Math Advisory Committee for a portion of NAEP resources. Ochoa added that she thought that "this situation represents a back seat status for social studies." She noted that these developments reflected "how poorly NCSS [had] fought the 'basics battle,' " and cited the situation as evidence of "how desperately we need a government relations arm."

Three months later Ochoa reported that the Citizenship/Social Studies component would receive half of 40 test packages and math the other half (Ochoa to Board, November 15, 1979). Given that 32 packages were required for something resembling a "comprehensive" assessment (one package equals 45 minutes of test time), and that the Citizenship/Social Studies objectives had never been comprehensively assessed while math had, Ochoa regarded this as anything but the "equitable" distribution of test packages in which NAEP representatives had voiced an interest. Ochoa also held serious reservations about NAEP's decision-making process in these matters. Ochoa commented that "the committees seem to be window-dressing on a process where I witnessed rubberstamping of the NAEP staff recommendation." In response to Ochoa's report, NCSS President George G. Watson, Jr., wrote to Roy Forbes, Director of NAEP (November 30, 1979), expressing disappointment for the partial (versus comprehensive) assessment for social studies and in the decision-making process that appeared biased in favor of NAEP staff at the neglect of advisory committee input. It seems reasonable to conclude that were it not for Ochoa's persistence and the correspondence from the Board of Directors to NAEP that resulted from her reporting, the Citizenship/Social Studies assessment might well have been dropped, thus altering the position of social studies in educational policy from low status to no status.

NCSS and MACOS. While the nature of the NAEP assessments held clear ramifications for social studies education, no issue of the era seemed to shake the NCSS leadership as much as the "Man: A Course Study" (MACOS) controversy did. Perusing issues of Social Education from the period, one gets the sense that there was considerable commitment to and no little excitement about the national curriculum projects sponsored by NSF on the part of social studies educators. In May 1974, for example, Social Education included five articles about MACOS in its "Social Studies and the Elementary Teacher" feature.

The controversies that ultimately swarmed around MACOS were reflected in the October 1975 issue of Social Education, in which a "Pro/Con Forum" was devoted to the curriculum project. Congressman John B. Conlan depicted MACOS as "an assault on cherished attitudes and values regarding morals, social behavior, religion, and our unique American economic and political lifestyle" (388). He alleged that MACOS was an elitist propaganda instrument that foisted relative values on children, threatened local control, and presaged the undesirable movement toward a national curriculum. (Conlan's objection and allegations clearly resemble present-day grassroots attacks on Outcome Based Education.) Peter Dow, who had played key leadership roles in the development of the MACOS curriculum, attempted to offer constructive, straightforward answers to commonly asked questions about MACOS. The February 1976 issue of Social Education printed a handful of letters about MACOS by social studies educators. The latter did not take issue with any controversial aspect of the project, but rather praised its critical examination of social science concepts.

The assault on MACOS hit close enough to home for NCSS leaders to prepare a position statement on MACOS for submission to the House Science and Technology Committee Science Review Group in June 1975 (Larkin to Moudy, June 20, 1975). In his letter of transmittal, Executive Director Brian Larkin assured Committee Chair James Moudy that NCSS "does not endorse any specific curriculum, textbook, project, or other instructional materials." Prepared by Larkin with input from the Executive Committee and the Board of Directors, the NCSS position statement on MACOS was clearly a plea to maintain federal funding of curriculum development projects. The statement defended MACOS by identifying the prominent social scientists whose research served as the foundation of the project's content, indicating endorsement of the project by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the American Educational Publishers' Institute, and citing the favorable response to the project in a survey of teachers about national curriculum projects. Throughout, the statement emphasized the right, indeed the obligation of local community members and teachers to choose curriculum materials consistent with local goals and objectives. The statement defended federally funded curriculum development projects by suggesting, among other things, that without such support, curriculum reform would not be likely to happen in local schools.

Political Action Arm. In November 1975 Executive Director Brian Larkin proposed the formation of a "political action arm" of NCSS to the Board of Directors. This proposal came in the wake of the MACOS controversy and immediately prior to a flurry of efforts on the part of NCSS to establish citizenship education as a priority for American schools ("A Proposal to Establish...," 1977). The Executive Committee consisted of Howard Mehlinger, Anna Ochoa, and Brian Larkin in an ex-officio capacity, with Jack Risher serving as chair. In October 1976, it presented a report on the feasibility of such a body (J. P. Shaver to J. Risher, May 14, 1976).

In its October 1976 report, the Committee to Explore the Feasibility of Establishing a "Political Action Arm" for NCSS explained that the Council's 501 c(3) tax classification prevented it from devoting more than 20 percent of its budget to lobbying and to seeking to influence the outcome of an election. The Committee cited the Council's relatively small size and proportionally small influence, the prospect of provoking an IRS investigation, and the possibilities of ultimately politicizing the organization and alienating some members as reasons not to alter NCSS's tax classification to 501 c(6), which would permit substantial political lobbying. Recognizing that effective lobbying requires a singularity of focus and a significant financial commitment, the Committee recommended that the Council could pursue sufficient lobbying by either (1) establishing a "professional liaison program" and employing a full-time lobbyist familiar with the Washington, DC, scene modeled after similar efforts by AERA, or (2) redefining an existing staff position to include lobbying responsibilities.

The minutes of the Board's November 1976 meeting reveal that the direction of the report was "accepted and that a professional governmental liaison [was to] be established within the existing structure of the organization. It was decided," the minutes read, "that the ramifications of creating a new organization would be too risky and costly at this point, but that NCSS should try to influence legislation at the national level." The Board commissioned an implementation plan at the time, which was presented one year later ("A Proposal to Establish...," November, 1977). The plan called for the Board of Directors to establish a Governmental Relations Board as an operational committee and a national network of 50 state and 435 district representatives. Minutes of the 1977 Executive Committee meeting indicate favorable reception of the "legislative liaison program" with the provision that NCSS would ask the state councils to support communications costs. It is unclear from archival materials what came of this plan; an Ad Hoc Committee on Government Relations was, however, listed in Social Education in 1980 and 1981, after which time the journal no longer listed Council committees.

Essentials Versus Basics. During the late 1970s NCSS became involved in a multiorganizational effort to formulate a professional statement on the proper essentials of the social studies. The essentials effort was primarily a political maneuver. This is evident from (1) the fact that the extant NCSS files on the Essentials Task Force (NCSS, 840925, Box 18) document largely successful efforts of the multi-association Task Force to recruit organizational endorsements of the Essentials of Education statement (although, ironically, most of this material pertains to other organizations, leaving the exact role of NCSS officials unclear), and (2) a document titled "The Essentials of Education - A Campaign Concept Paper" authored by Steve Hallmark of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (an association known a decade later for leading the way in the development of curriculum "standards").

Hallmark observed that although the Essentials statement had received a favorable reception in educational circles, it remained largely unknown and uninfluential beyond those circles. Hallmark outlined goals for the campaign, proposed an organizational structure, and offered illustrative activities. Hallmark identified the forthcoming 1980 presidential election campaign as an opportunity to put the Essentials on the national agenda, an opportunity "we should exploit to the hilt," as he put it.

In summary, during the period 1968 to 1982, NCSS members exercised a professional voice on a range of issues and through a variety of vehicles. Such activities can be seen not only as an effort to establish a presence in educational policymaking, but also as an assertion of a professional identity.

A Professional Identity

Arguably, virtually all of the developments discussed above contributed to a developing professional identity for the field of social studies. Three NCSS-supported initiatives, however, seem to illustrate further how during the period 1968 to 1982 the development of a professional identity for the field was a high priority for social studies leaders, and for NCSS.

Defining the Field

A notable effort to arrive at a sense of professional identity for the social studies field was represented in NCSS Bulletin 51, prepared by Robert D. Barr, James L. Barth, and S. Samuel Shermis (1977) and aptly titled Defining the Social Studies. In his foreword to the volume, NCSS President Howard Mehlinger frankly proclaimed, "Social studies has an identity crisis." Similarly, Barr, Barth, and Shermis (1977) opened their discussion with the observation, "The field of social studies is so caught up in ambiguity, inconsistency, and contradiction that it represents a complex educational enigma" (1). They proceeded to provide a synopsis of the history of the social studies and to identify three basic traditions in social studies education: social studies as transmission, as social science, and as reflective inquiry. Ultimately, they offered a new, synthetic definition of social studies: "The social studies is an integration of experience and knowledge concerning human relations for the purpose of citizenship education" (69).

Profiling the Profession

The search for a professional identity for the social studies that characterized Council activities during the 1970s was reflected in an identifiable interest in arriving at an understanding of the status of social studies in the schools with respect both to the nature of professionals and of their practices. Four such efforts are notable in this regard. The first was a survey of social studies teachers conducted in 1975-76 by Richard Gross and published in the March 1977 issue of Social Education. The second was a set of six regional case studies conducted in 1976-77 under the direction of John Jarolimek and published in the November-December issue of Social Education. NCSS had also contracted to analyze the results of three studies initiated in 1976 by NSF and reported its impressions in the February 1979 issue of Social Education. Finally, between October 1978 and October 1980 the Social Science Education Consortium conducted the SPAN study, officially titled "Social Studies/Social Science Education:Priorities, Practices and Needs." The study was also sponsored by NSF, and its results were published in the May and November-December 1980 issues of Social Education, as well as in book form by ASCD (Morrissett, n.d.). While NCSS did not officially endorse the views represented in these various studies, the fact that Council leaders were clearly committed to an airing of the findings probably reflects a widespread concern about the status and identity of the profession.

Consolidating the Curriculum

In an April 30, 1979, memo to the Board of Directors, Anna Ochoa maintained that the "variety of new and separate thrusts" of the 1970s, each of which "is tugging at the social studies curriculum for a piece of that diminishing pie," had led to a curriculum "confusion" that "creates a cacophony that defies description." She identified the need to "clarify the relationship of each of these separate thrusts to the social studies," and recommended that the President create a task force or ad hoc committee to generate three or four "alternative K-12 scope and sequence outlines that would be published in Social Education." Her hope was that these alternative scope and sequences would serve as points of departure for a professional dialogue that would lead to an "organizing" of the social studies.

At its November 24, 1979, meeting the Board approved a proposal to develop a scope and sequence for social studies. After the Board directed NCSS President Todd Clark to pursue this initiative, Howard Mehlinger wrote to Clark describing the kind of project he envisioned. Mehlinger commented, "At the present time, social studies is in general disarray," and cited the impact of the minimum basic competency movement on lowering the status of the social studies. Mehlinger proposed a national commission of twelve to fifteen members representing various sectors of society, including education, business, labor, media, and government, chaired by "a prestigious American," and "called into being by a combination of professional organizations." Mehlinger called for an ambitious undertaking, "a mixture of scholarship, politics, and public relations" that "could be the most exciting, intellectual development in the field of social studies since the Beard Commission," as he optimistically put it.

Clark promptly called upon NCSS past Presidents from 1964 to 1979 for advice concerning such an endeavor. He received responses from twelve past presidents (see NCSS 840925, Box 18, Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York). Mehlinger's plan differed from Ochoa's, discussed above, chiefly in that he called for a national commission representing diverse interests. Past President Ochoa, who had discussed Mehlinger's version of the proposal with Shirley Engle, cautioned Clark that "before we plunge headlong into a National Commission [apparently of the kind Mehlinger proposed], we must get our own house in order." Employing particularly pointed language, Ochoa warned, "Without a thoughtful NCSS position, the social studies could be slaughtered when placed in dialogue with social scientists or representatives of other sectors" (Ochoa to Clark, January 31, 1980).

Although both Mehlinger's conception of the project and a Board resolution at the November 1979 meeting called for input from representatives of various organizations, this was not to be. The reason was apparently not because of Ochoa's warning. Operating with a limited budget, the Executive Committee charged the President to appoint a geographically based committee that would work "without subsidization" (Clark to Special Committee, March 17, 1980). Former NCSS President Jean Claugus assumed the responsibility of chairing the Special Committee on Essentials of the Social Studies/Scope and Sequence. It seems that by March 1980, the scope and sequence project had been combined with the development of a statement of the essentials of the social studies, the latter of which was an obligation the Council carried with its endorsement of the Essentials of Education statement. A statement on the Essentials of Social Studies was indeed published in the March 1981 issue of Social Education, but the contributors to that document were not identified there. A scope and sequence was published in the same place in April 1984, but the contributors to that document were not those named in Clark's March 1980 mailing list, and they hailed from a different, though nearby, region. In any event, it is apparent that the scope and sequence project attempted to address the fragmentation of the field, further established a professional voice and presence for the Council and the field, and can be considered to have been part and parcel of ongoing attempts to develop a distinct identity for the social studies.

The Paradox of Professionalization

The years 1968 to 1982 were an epoch notable for NCSS activities that can be construed as efforts to establish and disseminate a professional identity for the social studies field. Whether endeavoring to constitute a more professional organization, to establish the hallmarks of a profession for the social studies field, or to exercise a professional voice on social studies-related issues, during this episode of the Council's history, the activities of NCSS members can be understood as an effort to define an identity for the field. While the development of a professional identity may be implied in some activities, in others it was an express purpose. Yet there is certainly minimal evidence to suggest that anything like a long-term, concerted effort was made toward such an end, although such a vision may well have been on the minds of many of those who participated in these activities. In fact, most of the major Council activities discussed above were more reactive than proactive. Further, while each activity can be said to have made some contribution to the building of a professional identity for the social studies, it is not apparent that such an identity can be derived from the sum of these activities. Nor is it apparent that consensus could have been reached on exactly what would constitute such an identity.
There seems to have been a tension between a tendency toward fragmentation and attempts to establish a professional identity for the social education field. Many NCSS leaders referred to the fragmentation-cohesion dilemma in both public documents and internal memoranda, sometimes treating it cautiously, other times candidly warning of its possible consequences. But whether reflected in the attempt on the part of Social Education to appeal to various constituents of the membership, in the creation of SIGs to cater to specialized interests, in the dichotomy Hertzberg (1981) identified between the new social studies projects and what she somewhat derisively termed "the social problems/self-realization approaches" (139), or indeed among the various disciplines represented in the myriad NSF projects, the "diversity" of the field which contributed to its fragmentation was little mitigated by attempts to find common ground. It remains to be seen whether the diverse perspectives within the social studies can achieve anything resembling a professional identity for the entire field.

References

Acknowledgement: The author wishes to express his gratitude to David Ment and Claire McCurdy of the Department of Special Collections, Millbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, for their invaluable assistance in locating documents."

"A Proposal to the Education Commission of the States: 'NAEP Findings in Citizenship and Social Studies: What do they mean?'" September 28, 1972 NCSS 850001, Box 12. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

."A Proposal to Establish an NCSS Governmental Relations Program," November, 1977. NCSS 820912, Box 4. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., and Shermis, S. S. Defining the Social Studies. Bulletin 51. Washington, DC: NCSS, 1977.Todd Clark to NCSS Past Presidents, December 13, 1979. NCSS 840925, Box 18. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Todd Clark to Special Committee on the Essentials of the Social Studies/Scope and Sequence, March 17, 1980. NCSS 840926, Box 18. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

. "The Constitution of the National Council for the Social Studies," Social Education 44, no. 5 (1978): 416-417.Fair, J. "Quarterly Report on NCSS Review of National Assessment in Citizenship and Social Studies," July 16, 1973. NCSS 850001, Box 13. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Fair J. "Quarterly Report on NCSS Review of National Assessment in Citizenship and Social Studies," October 15, 1973. NCSS 850001, Box 13. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Jean Fair to Members of the [NAEP Project] Steering Committee and Investigators, October 26, 1973. NCSS 850001, Box 13. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Jean Fair to Merrill Hartshorn, May 31, 1974. NCSS 850001, Box 13. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

. Hallmark, S. "The Essentials of Education - A Campaign Concept Paper," December 10, 1979. NCSS 840925, Box 18. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Hartshorn, M. F. "Notes and News." Social Education 32, no. 4 (1968): 389-395, 423.Hartshorn, M. F. "Announcements and Events." Social Education 33, no. 1 (1969): 89-90.Hertzberg, H. W. Social Studies Reform, 1880-1980. Boulder, Colo.: Social Science Education Consortium, 1981.Brian J. Larkin to James M. Moudy, June 20, 1975. NCSS 820912, Box 1. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Leming, J. S. "The Two Cultures of Social Studies Education." Social Education 53, no. 6 (1989): 404-408.Lieberman, M. Education as a Profession. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1956. "The MACOS Question: A Statement by the National Council for the Social Studies." June 20, 1975. NCSS 820912, Box 1. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

. Mehlinger, H. "President's Message on Constitutional Revision." The Social Studies Professional 43 (May-June 1977): 2, 4-5. NCSS 830919, Box 6. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Howard Mehlinger to Todd Clark, December 6, 1979. NCSS, Papers of Anna S. Ochoa, Box 8, Files 13-20. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

."Minutes of the Board of Directors," November 1-6, 1976. NCSS 840925, Box 1. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

."Minutes of the Executive Committee," November 1977. NCSS 850001, Box 12. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

."Minutes of the 13th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 34, no. 4 (1969): 481-496."Minutes of the 14th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 37, no. 3 (1971): 327-330."Minutes of the 20th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 41, no. 5 (1977): 443-447."Minutes of the 21st Delegate Assembly." Social Education 42, no. 5 (1978): 414-418.Morrissett, I., ed. Social Studies in the 1980s: A Report of Project SPAN. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD, n.d.Anna S. Ochoa to Board of Directors, April 30, 1979. NCSS, Papers of Anna S. Ochoa, Box 8, Files 13-20. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Anna S. Ochoa to NCSS Board of Directors, August 1, 1979. MG 17, Box 20. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.Anna S. Ochoa to NCSS Board of Directors, November 15, 1979. MG 17, Box 20. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

Anna S. Ochoa to Todd Clark, January 31, 1980. NCSS, Papers of Anna S. Ochoa, Box 8, Files 13-20. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

."Report of the Committee to Explore the Feasibility of Establishing a 'Political Action Arm' for the NCSS," October, 1976. NCSS 850001, Box 13. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

."Report of the Executive Secretary to the House of Delegates, 1968." Social Education 33, no. 3(1969): 361-362."Report of the President to the House of Delegates, 1968." Social Education 33, no. 3 (1969): 360-361.James P. Shaver to Daniel Roselle, January 2, 1975. NCSS 820912, Box 2. Papers of James P. Shaver. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

.James P. Shaver to Jack Risher. NCSS 820912, Box 2. Papers of James P. Shaver. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

, May 14, 1976."Summary of Minutes of NCSS Twelfth Delegate Assembly, 1968." Social Education 33, no. 4 (1969): 481-484, 496.George G. Watson to Roy Forbes, November 30, 1979. MG 17, Box 20. Special Collections, Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York

William G. Wraga is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership of the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

Recent Challenges and Achievements: 1982-1995

By Margaret A. Laughlin

NCSS confronted several key challenges in the period from 1982 to 1995. At a time when dramatic changes were taking place in the world and a new political climate in the United States was raising questions about the future of social studies education, NCSS was called on to serve as a voice for social studies teachers on major educational and other issues. After a number of past efforts to clarify the definition of social studies and articulate the requirements of social studies programs, NCSS reached a milestone with its publication of Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, a user-friendly framework for social studies teaching that seemed likely to have a widespread impact. The period was also one in which NCSS attempted to reach beyond its traditional sources of membership, seeking to make a stronger contribution to social studies at the elementary level, and to expand its international presence. Overshadowing attempts at widening the scope of its activities were fluctuations in membership and financial revenues, which were a cause of concern in the early 1990s.

A Changing World

From 1982 to 1995, the world experienced the falling of the Berlin Wall; the breakup of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia; the Gulf War; the end of apartheid in South Africa; the events in Tianamen Square; major international conferences focusing on women, population, and the environment; global economic changes; acts of national and international terrorism; completion of "the Chunnequot; between France and England; continued international cooperative space projects; an increase of immigration to the United States; and changing U.S. demographics and family structures.

As professionals, social studies teachers reflected on ways to help young learners grasp the significance of these events and assess their impact on individual lives. Teaching social studies during these years was no simple task. Teachers often looked to NCSS for direction in resolving a range of professional issues related to the rapidly changing, interdependent world.

NCSS sought to reflect the views of the profession through its publications, especially through its journals Social Education, Theory and Research in Social Education and Social Studies and the Young Learner; its newsletter, The Social Studies Professional; its bulletins; and special publications, including position papers and major academic contributions, such as the first Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, edited by James P. Shaver in 1991, which provided a comprehensive overview and analysis of research in social studies education. (The tables accompanying this article provide examples of the range of issues covered by NCSS publications.) NCSS also attempted to serve as a voice for the social studies community through a range of resolutions presented and adopted by the members of the House of Delegates, the elected NCSS delegate assembly that provides direction to the NCSS Board of Directors through the discussion and passage of resolutions at the annual meeting. These resolutions dealt with both social and professional issues.

The minutes of the delegate assemblies from 1982 through 1994 show that several substantive social issues were addressed. The general tenor of the resolutions passed was liberal. Some examples of the positions adopted in these resolutions were opposition to school prayer in 1982 ("Minutes of the 26th Delegate Assembly," 295); a condemnation of acts of violence against human rights in 1983 ("Minutes of the 27th Delegate Assembly," 295-96); a recommendation in 1984 that the United States remain a member of UNESCO ("Minutes of the 28th Delegate Assembly," 337) followed by one in 1987 that the United States fulfill its legal obligations to the United Nations ("Minutes of the 31st Delegate Assembly," 221); support in 1989 for a Supreme Court decision protecting symbolic free speech; advocacy in 1989 of the passage of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child during the 1989-90 session of the United Nations General Assembly ("Minutes of the 33rd Delegate Assembly," 229-30); and support in 1992 for social justice, focusing on issues of racism, other forms of discrimination, and social equity ("Minutes of the 36th Delegate Assembly," 195-96).

Addressing more specifically professional concerns were numerous resolutions aimed at strengthening various social studies curriculum content areas between 1984 and 1992 ("Minutes of the 28th Delegate Assembly," 337-38; "Minutes of the 29th Delegate Assembly," 224, 226; "Minutes of the 30th Delegate Assembly," 222, 224; "Minutes of the 32nd Delegate Assembly," 252-53; "Minutes of the 34th Delegate Assembly," 265-66; "Minutes of the 36th Delegate Assembly," 195-96). Other resolutions focused on requiring four years of social studies course work for high school graduation in 1983 and 1990 ("Minutes of the 27th Delegate Assembly," 294; "Minutes of the 34th Delegate Assembly," 265); on recommending in 1987 the development and acceptance of three scope and sequence models to help curriculum development efforts1 (Minutes of the 31st Delegate Assembly," 219); on reaffirming academic freedom in 1986 ("Minutes of the 30th Delegate Assembly," 224) and intellectual freedom in 1994 ("Minutes of the 38th Delegate Assembly," 235-36); on recommending in 1986 that task forces be established to develop guidelines, policies, and/or position statements for early childhood/ elementary education ("Minutes of the 30th Delegate Assembly," 222); on examining ways in 1988 to increase minority representation within NCSS and the profession ("Minutes of the 32nd Delegate Assembly," 253); on recommending in 1989 the inclusion of practical classroom teaching ideas for K-12 teachers in Social Education ("Minutes of the 33rd Delegate Assembly, 227-28); on recommending in 1991 that NCSS assume a visible role in advancing the integrity of the social studies in light of Goals 2000 ("Minutes of the 35th Delegate Assembly," 251); and on supporting a reduction in class size in 1994 ("Minutes of the 38th Delegate Assembly," 235).

Setting the Standards for Social Studies

Between 1982 and 1994, NCSS continued its traditional efforts to clarify the definition of social studies, define the purpose of social studies and articulate the requirements of social studies programs.
Historically, definitions of social studies have been many and varied. Over time, each has helped to provide direction for social studies programs. Most social studies educators would probably agree that a generally accepted goal of social studies programs is the attainment of a civic competence which recognizes local, national, and international citizenship responsibilities. Given the demands of our changing society, helping young people to learn problem solving and decision-making skills is a prerequisite for civic competence.

The most recent (and probably not the last) definition of social studies is provided in the social studies standards.

Social studies is the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence. Within the school program, social studies provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science, psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities, mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world (Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies 1994, vii).

This definition continues to promote the primacy of civic competence and the need to help young people become effective citizens by developing the requisite skills and acquiring the necessary information from many disciplines and perspectives for effective decision making. The definition also recognizes that civic responsibility extends beyond the individual to the global society.

Five years before NCSS published the social studies standards, it issued a more controversial publication, Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century: A Report of the Curriculum Task Force of the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. This document was a joint project of the American Historical Association, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, NCSS, and the Organization of American Historians. The report noted a lack of coherence in social studies at all levels. It suggested a framework and structure for social studies curriculum development by giving emphasis to history, geography, and government as organizing disciplines. Articles in support and critical of Charting a Course appeared in two issues of Social Education ("Charting a Course: Continuing the Debate" 1991; Epstein and Evans 1990).2

In 1994, the NCSS curriculum standards, Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, attempted to provide a broader framework for organizing the social studies curriculum. The publication identified ten disciplinary and interdisciplinary interrelated strands representing key concepts in the seven social science disciplines and interdisciplinary strands. Most social studies educators are likely to agree that these overarching and interconnected strands represent key learning requirements in social studies content. The ten strands to be addressed at each grade level are presented in Figure 1, The Ten K-12 Social Studies Strands.

One or more strand is likely to receive a greater emphasis at a particular grade level and less attention in other grades. What is important is that each strand is properly addressed in the course of the K-12 social studies program.

The standards document is a landmark for several reasons. First of all, it provides an overall umbrella for standards in the social studies. The document is user friendly. It identifies performance expectations and shows linkages among the strands. It describes two or three classroom activities for the early grades, middle grades, and high school for each of the ten themes. These vignettes provide a starting point for selecting and creating learning activities.

Second, the Standards are valuable to state and local district curriculum development efforts. The national standards developed for civics and government, geography, and United States and world history relate well to the NCSS standards and the discipline-based standards should be able to find a "home" within the NCSS standards. The development of national standards for economics is currently underway. It is important to keep in mind that a single social science discipline does not meet the broader vision and more encompassing strands of the NCSS standards.

Third, the NCSS curriculum standards are a vehicle for developing meaningful social studies assessment instruments to assess important student learning in social studies.

Fourth, the ten strands provide a vehicle for staff development as teachers use the standards, acquire new information about the teaching/learning process, and develop new instructional units, etc. Implementing the NCSS standards provides the framework for developing an exciting and worthwhile social studies program.

Finally, the standards provide a means for K-12 educators to communicate with one another and with other publics (e.g., parents, school boards, colleagues, community members) about the importance of social studies as a core subject and as an important part of general education course work for all students during their K-12 learning years.

The standards have met a wide demand for curriculum guidelines in social studies. Because of the demand, the publication was reprinted within a year of its first appearance. Future NCSS publications showing educators how to apply the standards are planned.3

Expanding the Scope of NCSS

Between 1982 and 1995, NCSS reached out to new potential groups of members, notably among elementary teachers, and educators in other countries.

Social Studies Education at the Elementary Level

In an attempt to contribute to the teaching of social studies at the elementary level, in the fall of 1988 NCSS launched a new quarterly publication Social Studies and the Young Learner, which was developed to meet the expressed needs of K-6 teachers. The journal, which is published four times a year, offers both theoretical and practical examples of teaching ideas which are useful to many teachers in various settings. A "pull out feature" provides background information and includes several learning-related activities to help students learn the content and concepts addressed. Like Social Education, Social Studies and the Young Learner has departments with special features, including book reviews, a media corner, teacher's round table, teacher resources, and a perspectives section.
There has been some preliminary discussion about launching a special publication targeted to middle school social studies teachers, but thus far no funds have been available to begin publication of another NCSS journal. Many hope that this unmet need will be addressed by NCSS in the coming years.

International Conferences

To reach out to social studies educators in locales other than the United States, NCSS organized three international conferences between 1988 and 1994 in cooperation with other social studies oriented associations. These international meetings were well attended by both NCSS members and representatives from other nations. The first international conference, held in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1988, focused on the Pacific Rim nations. The second, held in Miami, Florida, in 1991, provided a forum for discussing issues related to the Caribbean, while the third and most recent international conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1994 examined issues related to the environment. The fourth and next international conference is planned for Sydney, Australia in 1997. Its theme will be issues related to education for responsible citizenship.

Online Services

NCSS has joined the information revolution by creating an information service, NCSSOnline, on the Internet's World Wide Web at www.ncss.org/online. A smaller "message board" was also established earlier on the America Online information service in the Teacher's Information Network area.

These endeavors allow users to obtain information about NCSS and its mission; listings of national, regional, state, and local meetings and workshops; and information about publications, membership, and curriculum standards. NCSSOnline also allows instant access to up-to-date schedules and information about the NCSSAnnual Conference. Social studies educators who use America Online can also engage in discussions with colleagues about topics of particular interest to them.

Less sophisticated, but eminently useful, is the ability to contact NCSS via electronic mail at ncss@ncss.org.

NCSS Reorganization

Recently, the NCSS committee structure was reorganized with a view to rationalizing the committee system, standardizing the criteria for committee membership, and reducing the number of committees by consolidating some of their functions.

Within NCSS there are several committees to advise the Board of Directors. Membership is by appointment, with several recommendations coming from the House of Delegates and the three constituent groups, the College and University Faculty Assembly, the National Social Studies Supervisors Association, and the State Social Studies Supervisors Council. Individual NCSS members may apply to be appointed to serve on a committee.

The committee structure enables a number of members to be active participants within the governance structure of NCSS. The criteria used in making appointments to committees include professional responsibilities, geographic location, and involvement in local, state, or NCSS activities. Committee members include members representing K-12 education, district and state social studies supervisors, college and university faculty, and others who are NCSS members. Committee members serve three-year staggered terms and meet during the annual meeting.

Committee members are encouraged to submit program proposals on behalf of the committee for the NCSS program for the following year. These presentations enable the broader membership to become aware of the actions and/or activities of the committees and to offer appropriate recognition to committee members. Committees often propose resolutions for consideration by the House of Delegates. Among the present NCSS committees are archives, assessment, awards, curriculum, membership, nominations, publications, research, teacher education, and others.

The terms of the elected NCSS officers were changed to ensure a smoother operation and officer changeover. Leadership terms begin on July 1 each calendar year and extend to the following June 30. Election procedures have been revised several times to enable members to have information about the candidates, so that voters are able to make more informed choices. A relatively low number of NCSS members actually vote in the election, though attempts are being made to encourage them to vote in greater numbers.

Continuing Concerns

NCSS membership since 1982 has fluctuated greatly. It is currently lower than five years ago in 1990, but seems recently to have begun to increase again.
At present individual NCSS members are encouraged to invite a colleague to join NCSS as a part of the "each one reach one" current membership recruitment effort. Members who do so are recognized for their efforts at the annual NCSS meeting. The future seems promising in terms of increased individual, comprehensive, and student memberships. Retaining current members while adding new members, especially elementary teachers of social studies and ethnic/racial minority members, and providing additional services to members, will continue to be a challenge for the organization in the immediate future. While NCSS is the largest professional social studies organization in the world and its membership reflects the overall teaching population, it needs to continue its efforts to diversify and expand its membership.

Closely related to the membership statistics has been the question of declining financial resources. Reduced income in the period of decrease in membership created budgetary and financial problems for the organization. The headquarters staff has been reduced and reorganized, other cost-cutting measures have been taken, and plans developed to meet a deficit. On the positive side, beginning with the Nashville conference in 1993, NCSS conference attendance has increased fairly substantially, and this has brought in additional revenues to help reduce the debt. New membership drives are underway. Many NCSS leaders are hopeful for the future.

Toward the Next 75 Years

Within NCSS there are major efforts to propel the organization forward in terms of reducing divisiveness, making NCSS more inclusive of educators and academic disciplines, and creating strong connections with social-science-oriented discipline groups. With the publication of the standards, NCSS has become more closely linked with the content disciplines, and has a new opportunity to serve as the umbrella organization for the social studies academic disciplines.
Throughout the past 75 years NCSS has developed as an organization by serving the social studies community. It has reflected the profile of the social studies profession. NCSS has been engaged in a range of professional issues involving academic freedom, censorship, scope and sequence, curriculum development, textbook controversies, and others. NCSS will need to provide leadership for the social studies profession on the cutting edge of current critical issues facing education such as assessment, curriculum content, changing school populations, and other school reforms that are already on the educational and political agenda. It is important that NCSS and its members be travelers in time, playing an active personal and professional role in the process of change. The future is ours to shape.

Notes

1 Readers are encouraged to examine the ongoing issues of scope and sequence by reviewing Social Education of November/December 1986 and October 1989 for a discussion of the three recommended scope and sequence models.

2 Readers are encouraged to read articles included in Social Education in November/December 1990 and January 1991, which offer several perspectives on the recommendations contained in this report.

3 The first publication in this series will be a series of articles reprinted from various professional journals that are intended to assist K-6 teachers and curriculum developers use the standards in their teaching and curriculum development efforts.

References

"Alternative Scopes and Sequences." Social Education 53, no. 6 (1989): 375-403. Bragaw, D. H., ed.

"Scope and Sequence: Alternatives for Social Studies." Social Education 58, no. 7 (1986): 484-542."Charting a Course: Continuing the Debate." Social Education 55, no. 1 (1991): 24-28.

Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century -A Report of the Curriculum Task Force of the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1989.Epstein, T. L., and R. W. Evans, eds.

"Reactions to Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century." Social Education 54, no. 7 (1990): 427-46.Expectations of Excellence-Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Bulletin 89. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1994.

"Minutes of the 26th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 47, no. 3 (1983): 291-96."Minutes of the 27th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 48, no. 4 (1984): 291-96.

"Minutes of the 28th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 49, no. 4 (1985): 333-39.

"Minutes of the 29th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 50, no. 3 (1986): 220, 222, 224, 226, and 228.

"Minutes of the 30th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 51, no. 3 (1987): 220-22, 224, and 226."Minutes of the 31st Delegate Assembly." Social Education 52, no. 3 (1988): 217-22.

"Minutes of the 32d Delegate Assembly." Social Education 53, no. 4 (1989): 252-56.

"Minutes of the 33d Delegate Assembly." Social Education 54, no. 4 (1990): 227-31.

"Minutes of the 34th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 55, no. 4 (1991): 264-67.

"Minutes of the 35th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 56, no. 4 (1992): 250-52.

"Minutes of the 36th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 57, no. 4 (1993): 193-96.

"Minutes of the 37th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 58, no. 4 (1994): 199-205.

"Minutes of the 38th Delegate Assembly." Social Education 59, no. 4 (1995): 230-38.

"National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools." Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, 1989.National Council for the Social Studies.

Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1994.

 Shaver, J. P., ed. Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1991.

Margaret A. Laughlin is a professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay where she teaches a combined K-12 social studies methods course, and other graduate and undergraduate courses in curriculum and foundations.

Nightmares and Possibilities: A Perspective on Standard-Setting

By S. G. Grant

As the results of state and national standards-setting projects1 become clear, there will be a rush to review them. If sessions during the 1994 National Council for Social Studies annual conference in Phoenix are any indication, however, those reviews will be mixed at best. I am certainly not sanguine about these efforts. The potential for nightmares is real. But the possibilities of authentic and substantive change cannot be ignored.

The Nightmares

Let me begin with three nightmares. In a chapter titled "Autonomy and Obligation," Lee Shulman (1983) describes the assorted horrors of policymakers, teachers, and researchers:

For many of the policymakers, the vision is of teachers who do not teach, or teach only what they please to those who please them...whose low expectations for the intellectual prowess of poor children leads them to neglect their pedagogical duties toward the very groups who need instruction most desperately; or whose limited knowledge of the sciences, mathematics, and language arts results in their misteaching the most able.... (484)

To this horror, Shulman adds another:

...teachers harbor their own nightmares...They are subject to endless mandates and directives emanating from faceless bureaucrats pursuing patently political agendas. These policies not only dictate frequently absurd practices, they typically conflict with the policies transmitted from other agencies, from the courts, or from other levels of government. Each new policy further erodes the teacher's control over the classroom for which she is responsible.... (485)

As if that weren't enough, he adds the phantasm of the educational scholar:

...the scholar's nightmare is of an educational system at all levels uninformed by the wisdom of research, unguided by the lessons of scholarship. (485)
Shulman's "nightmares" have the ring of truth, or at least the ring of the familiar. Anyone who has worked on educational policy recognizes the potential for misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misuse by "street-level bureaucrats" (Lipsky 1980). Anyone who has taught recognizes the frustration born of outsider interference (even if well-intentioned). And anyone who has looked at classrooms with a researcher's eye recognizes the frustration of wrong turns needlessly taken.

Critics of recent standards-setting efforts are right on one score: The potential for similar nightmares is distressingly apparent. The blunt instrument of policy may work well in addressing broad schooling inequities (Green 1983). But the fine work of teaching and learning seems to lie well beyond the rhetorical reach of policy and policymakers (Grant 1994).

The Possibilities

Like many, I suspect that the standards-setting efforts will produce little dramatic effect on social studies classrooms across the country. But let me suggest (if only for the sake of argument) that there may be possibilities here that we would do well not to ignore or dismiss.
Consider three such possibilities. One is that recent standards documents may offer a vision of what might be, an image of the possible. A second possibility is that standards may serve to focus educators' attention, energies, and resources in support of ambitious teaching and learning. And third, standards may provide a context where teachers can engage in substantive conversations about ideas and practices. Let me say a bit about each of these by drawing from NCSS's Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (National Council for Social Studies 1994).

An Image of the Possible

First, standards can offer a vision of what might be, an image of what is possible. Past policy efforts have been justifiably criticized for aiming at mediocrity. The basic skills reforms during the 1970s, for example, undercut images of ambitious teaching by focusing on minimum competencies. Teachers who sought to create powerful learning opportunities for their students undoubtedly saw little to challenge or inspire them in policies with such middling expectations.

Teachers and others will read much of the new standards as obvious. The authors of the NCSS standards assert, "Social studies teaching and learning are powerful when they are meaningfuquot; (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 11) and "Our responsibility as educators is to imagine and create places of learning" (13). Statements like these and a list of practices such as debates and role-playing simulations will strike few teachers as revolutionary.

But imagine the power of a policy that does more than rearrange content topics or offer stale bromides. Imagine a policy text where vivid images illustrate the power, complexity, and dynamism of meaningful teaching and learning. Here the NCSS standards live up to their ambition of "providing examples of classroom activities that will help teachers as they design instruction to help their students meet performance expectations" (National Council for Social Studies 1994, ix). An extensive array of hypothetical classroom vignettes illustrates each of the ten major themes2 at three levels: early grades, middle grades, and high school. For example, the early grades vignette around the theme of "Time, Continuity, and Change" describes how an elementary teacher might organize a class of first, second, and third graders into cooperative groups to study historical photographs of their community (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 51-52). After the groups study and discuss each photograph, one can easily imagine a spirited conversation as students attempt to interpret the meaning and import of these historical artifacts. A middle grade vignette illustrating the theme of "Culture" (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 80-81) begins with a student questioning use of the term "Indian" in such manner as to blur distinctions among the many Native American peoples. Here the teacher uses the question to launch an investigation into similarities and differences across the Pawnee, Apache, Seneca, Cherokee, and Arawak. Though hypothetical, it is not hard to imagine a student concluding, as in this vignette, that "We can make it a rule-well, I guess I mean a practice-that whenever possible we will refer to American Indians by specific tribal names...." Nor is it hard to imagine another student adding, "I think we need to do this for everybody. We tend to do the same thing with Asians" (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 81). Finally, a high school vignette representing the theme of "Civic Ideals and Practices" illustrates how a teacher and his students might deal with the delicate issue of freedom of expression (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 140-141). As posed, the vignette begins with an argument between two students over the possibility of restricting offensive language in popular music. Here the teacher uses previous lessons on state authority and individual rights to issue a powerful and provocative question: "Are limits on freedom of expression appropriate in our democratic society" (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 141). Set in the context of an issue real and vital to the students, the teacher pushes them to consider and debate an array of positions.

To be sure, these vignettes exhibit a degree of artificiality: They portray only thoughtful, interested, and articulate students. They suggest teachers have virtually limitless curricular and instructional autonomy. They ignore the daily hassles of classroom life: frequent interruptions, too little instructional time, inadequate materials and resources. And yet, in these and several other of the classroom vignettes, one can imagine teachers reading them and thinking, "I could try that."

Focusing Attention: Energy and Resources

A second possibility is that standards might serve to focus attention, energy, and resources toward ambitious teaching and learning. New standards are likely to inspire a lot of activity. Conference sessions, inservices, and university courses will examine the standards; textbooks, curriculum guides, and tests will be reviewed and reconsidered. The authors of the NCSS document, for example, note that publication of the standards will begin a "series of discussion and training workshops at conventions and in other venues at national, state, and district levels" (National Council for Social Studies 1994, viii). Through these efforts and others, teachers will have multiple opportunities (and in some locations, even some time and money) to learn about new ideas and to make changes in their classroom practices.

Some of these opportunities will be unhelpful. Teachers may find professional development sessions of uneven quality. They may discover that textbooks present pallid versions of new ideas. They may observe that standardized tests send messages which conflict with reform messages. Beyond these problems lie others. Tight schedules, egg-crate structures, and batch processing approaches to schooling undercut the time and energy teachers will need to embrace big changes in their practices.

These difficulties cannot be dismissed lightly. But we should not leap to the assumption that the exigencies of teaching and learning will crowd out all efforts toward ambitious teaching and learning. Good classroom teachers, like those described in the vignettes above, know how to seize teachable moments. We must not ignore the potential inherent in individual teachers seeing opportunities in the new standards and seizing them to support and extend new approaches to teaching and learning.

Enabling Conversation

If individual teachers can benefit, then one other possibility is that standards might provide a context that encourages groups of teachers to engage in substantive conversations about practice. Consider two prospects. One is the notion that ideas can serve as powerful levers of change (Cohen 1989; Weiss 1990). The other is the potential of informal teacher networks (McLaughlin 1990; Wilson and Poppink in press). These prospects are inter-related: Some of the most dynamic work occurring in classrooms today is the result of teachers becoming involved with one another around a set of powerful ideas (the Bay Area Writing Group is one example). Taken together, these two points-that ideas matter and that teachers profit from opportunities to talk to one another-are worth considering. If teachers are both the "problem" and the "solution" to educational reform (Warren 1989), then one dimension of the solution may be creating opportunities for teachers to develop idea-based conversational communities (Grant and VanSledright 1991, 1992; VanSledright and Grant 1991).
The authors of the NCSS standards offer a number of big ideas worth serious and sustained discussion. One of those ideas is the notion that social studies educators should teach toward the "common good."

Excellence in social studies will be achieved by programs in which students gain the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to understand, respect, and practice the ways of the scholar, the artisan, the leader, and the citizen in support of the common good. (National Council for Social Studies 1994, 5; italics added)
The authors go on to assert that "individuals must understand that their self-interest is dependent upon the well-being of others in the community"(6). These are strong statements. They suggest a particular relationship between social and individual goals which privileges the former over the later. Some teachers may read this and simply nod in agreement. But I can imagine a group of teachers reading these statements and finding much in them to debate. Conceptual arguments could easily develop around questions such as who determines which goods are common and how many Americans must benefit in order for the "common good" to be served? Similarly, one can envision extended pedagogical discussions of how to represent such ideas in K-12 classrooms.

As teachers are increasingly urged to collaborate in their planning, teaching, and evaluation of students, one assumes that they will discuss ideas big and small. The marketplace for ideas in education is large. It is possible that teachers will interpret the buzz of standards as something to be ignored. But to the degree that standards such as the NCSS effort offer big, complex, and meaty ideas, we should expect that many teachers will find exploring them rewarding.

An Afterthought

These possibilities may turn out to be an academic's daydreams. There are serious questions to pursue around the new standards and there is much work ahead in examining and understanding questions such as what sense teachers make of these efforts and what influence (if any) standards may have on the classroom lives of teachers and students. As we investigate these questions, however, I hope we can be as sensitive to the possibilities as to the nightmares. 

Notes

¹ NCSS offered Expectations of Excellence in the fall of 1994. Standards for United States and world history developed by the National Standards project associated with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act soon followed (e.g., National Center for History in the Schools 1994a). New geography and civics standards have also been developed.

² The ten NCSS themes are: Culture; Time, Continuity, and Change; People, Places, and Environments; Individual Development and Identity; Individuals, Groups, and Institutions; Power, Authority, and Governance; Production, Distribution, and Consumption; Science, Technology, and Society; Global Connections; and Civic Ideals and Practices.

References

Cohen, David K. "Teaching Practice: Plus Ça Change...." In Contributing to Educational Change: Perspectives on Research and Practice, edited by Philip Jackson. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1989.

Grant, S. G. "Teaching History: Curricular Views from California and the United Kingdom." A paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council for Social Studies, Phoenix, Ariz., 1994. Forthcoming in the Journal of Social Studies Research.

Grant, S. G., and Bruce A. VanSledright. "From Citizen Knowledge to Civic Virtue: The Paradoxical Journey from Here to There." Social Science Record 28, no. 2 (1991): 23-34.

Grant, S. G., and Bruce A. VanSledright. "The First Questions of Social Studies: Initiating a Conversation." Social Education 56, no. 3 (1992): 141-143.Green, Thomas. "Excellence, Equity, and Equality." In Handbook of Teaching and Policy, edited by Lee Shulman and Gary Sykes. New York: Longman, 1983.

Lipsky, Michael. Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980.

McLaughlin, Milbrey W. "The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities." Educational Researcher 19, no. 9 (1990): 11-16.

National Center for History in the Schools. National Standards for United States History. Los Angeles: Author, 1994a.

National Center for History in the Schools. National Standards for World History. Los Angeles: Author, 1994b.

National Council for Social Studies. Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: 1994.

Shulman, Lee. "Autonomy and Obligation: The Remote Control of Teaching." In Handbook of Teaching and Policy, edited by Lee Shulman and Gary Sykes. New York: Longman, 1983.

VanSledright, Bruce. A., and S. G. Grant. "Surviving Its Own Rhetoric: Building a Conversational Community Within the Social Studies." Theory and Research in Social Education 24, no. 3 (1991): 283-304.Warren, Donald. "Teachers, Reformers, and Historians." In American Teachers: Histories of a Profession at Work, edited by Donald Warren. New York: Macmillan, 1989.

Weiss, Janet. "Ideas and Inducements in Mental Health Policy." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 9, no. 2 (1990): 178-200. Wilson, Suzanne M., and Sue Poppink. "Something Old, Something New: A Review of The Educational System." Journal of Curriculum Studies, in press.

S. G. Grant is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Learning and Instruction at the State University of New York at Buffalo. His interests lie at the intersection of curriculum policy and classroom practice.

James Michener and the Historical Future of Social Studies

By James P. Shaver

Novelist James Michener may well be the best-known public figure to have been a member of the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). He began his teaching and educational career in 1929 as an English teacher, but he soon switched to teaching social studies. Michener taught in two private schools (at The George School in southeastern Pennsylvania, he participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association) and then studied in Europe.

In 1937, Michener accepted an appointment at College High School, the laboratory school for the Colorado State College of Education (now the University of Northern Colorado) in Greeley. In 1939, he became a visiting instructor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where his associates included Wilbur Murra, the first full-time executive secretary of National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), and Howard Wilson, an NCSS founder. Unwilling to pursue the Ph.D. that was a prerequisite to promotion, he returned to Greeley. In 1941, Michener left academia for a position with Macmillan Publishing Company. He later commented that "I have never ceased to regret my departure from teaching . . . [and] I think of my books as an extension of my early commitments; creative teaching expressed in a different way" (Michener 1970, 763).

A few months before going to Harvard, Michener became active in NCSS and, in January 1940, was appointed chair of its Publication Committee.¹ Among his activities was the editing of an NCSS curriculum bulletin, The Future of the Social Studies, published in 1939. In an introductory chapter, Michener (1939/1991) discussed the status of social studies. Over fifty years later, his observations provide an interesting frame through which to contemplate the present and the likely future of social studies. Michener's assessment of the status of social studies in 1939 and the implications for its future should be considered in the context of the uncertainties of prognostication and the present status of the field.

Forecasting Social Studies

Caution in predicting the future of social studies will likely seem mandatory to anyone who took part in the then-exciting curriculum development movement of the 1960s and 1970s, still referred to somewhat charitably as the "New Social Studies." At the beginning of that period, I was a freshly minted doctor of education, trained as a curriculum developer on a citizenship education project aimed at helping students learn to analyze public issues (Oliver and Shaver 1966/1974). From that perspective, the social science projects that dominated the NSS movement (Fenton and Good 1965), with their acceptance of the structure-of-the-discipline approach laid out by Bruner (1960) in The Process of Education, were clearly wrongheaded (Shaver and Oliver 1968). By virtue of sheer numbers, however, the social science curricula produced by those projects seemed destined to dominate social studies in the schools. What seemed likely was a few islands of public-issues-oriented curricula awash in a sea of efforts to make all students into miniature social scientists.
As it turned out, the anticipation of a few islands of public-issues curricula was valid, if only marginally so; islets would have been a more fitting, if even then overstated, metaphor. However, the prediction of overwhelming influence by the structure-of-the-discipline, social science projects was also wrong. By the 1980s, there were few concrete vestiges of either type of project in the schools. The major residue of the New Social Studies has been periodic speculation about the possible impact of the movement on the textbooks that continue to dominate social studies instruction (Shaver 1992/93).

Few of the thousands of social studies classrooms across the country were touched fundamentally by the fuss and fury of educational reform, although the initiative and inventiveness of individual teachers has resulted in changes in practice here and there. Concurrently, the ubiquitous textbooks have displayed expanding barrages of color and eye-catching arrangements of print, but the conceptual changes have been minimal (Sewall 1988, 1992/93). Schooling now goes on largely as if the two decades of debate and development by social studies experts had not occurred (Cuban 1991; Shaver, Davis and Helburn 1980).

An apt metaphor for the impact of curricular innovations such as the New Social Studies is a pebble cast on a lake. The ripples spread, but most of the lake remains undisturbed. Soon the small wavelets run out and disappear, until another pebble is cast. Even if many pebbles are cast simultaneously, perhaps on a small section of the lake, with considerable surface disruption, long-lasting or deep structural changes in the body of water do not occur.

Nevertheless, there is not complete uniformity in social studies curricula. For example, in a middle school in a small western, rural town, largely unaffected by even the university just fifteen miles away, a ninth grader whom I know well recently had two contrasting world geography courses. The first was much like what many students experienced years ago. Student work was almost exclusively reading the textbook and filling in maps and worksheets, while American troops were being sent to Somalia-an event that went unmentioned in class. The next term the ninth grader moved down the hall to another teacher. To her, world geography is a means of challenging students to understand and think about the problems facing our society, such as acid rain, AIDS, and the economic plight of nations like Somalia. Instruction was problem-centered, challenging, and interactive.

Such personal experiences of curricular contrast suggest that the conclusions drawn from a review of studies sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the late 1970s are still valid:

There has been great stability in the social studies curriculum.... Those who graduated from high school twenty years ago or more would, if they visited their local schools, typically find social studies classes to be similar to those they experienced. [Yet,] significant changes...have occurred in some districts...[and] there is also much diversity and variety in what goes on in social studies classrooms. (Shaver, Davis and Helburn 1980, 17)

In short, although great general change in the social studies curriculum has not occurred, there is variability that can be significant for the students who experience it.

Difficulties in Knowing

The prediction, as well as the description, of the status of social studies is complicated by difficulties in assaying what is happening in classrooms across the nation. That is not true of the status of thinking by what has been referred to as the social studies "intelligentsia" (Shaver 1981). The presentations and publications by university professors and curriculum specialists are readily accessible, but that information has little value for understanding what is actually happening in elementary and secondary-school classrooms (Leming 1989; Shaver 1981; Shaver, Davis, and Helburn 1980).

The impediments to knowing what is going on in most social studies classrooms are at least threefold. First, those who write about social studies are typically involved in trying to change educational practice. They have a personal stake in innovation, and that tends to make them optimistic about its potential. Hope affects perception; glowing accounts of changed school practices are often based on surface, temporary indicators, such as the enthusiastic participation of teachers during program development or during the first year or so of implementation. As the Rand studies (Berman and McLaughlin 1978) showed, however, the introduction and implementation of projects in schools are no guarantee of institutionalization.

Second, educational innovators usually collaborate with school staffs who share their views and are eager, or at least amenable, to change. Reformers' perceptions of change are, therefore, often based on invalid samples of teacher and classroom populations. Not only are small, unrepresentative samples of schools and teachers involved in the innovative projects, but as the NSF studies of the status of social science/social studies education indicated, other teachers remain largely unaware of the projects' conceptual or material products (Shaver, Davis and Helburn 1980, 5-6).

Third, we have no good method for detecting what actually goes on in the multitude of classrooms across the country. That it is largely not what we read about in professional publications and hear about in conferences was confirmed by the NSF-sponsored studies of status in the late 1970s, referred to earlier. That extensive, multi-faceted classroom assessment of social studies included an exhaustive review of the literature (Wiley 1977), a national survey of teachers and administrators (Weiss 1978), and intensive ethnographic studies of twelve high schools and their feeder schools across the country (Stake and Easley 1978). It is, however, the only such assay of social studies ever conducted. As Cuban (1991, 199) has lamented, data about classroom teaching are not available periodically and, because of costs, are not likely to be.

James Michener's Descriptions and the Future

If knowing about social studies as implemented in schools is so difficult, it would be no surprise to find observational or futuristic shortcomings even in the writing of James Michener. In his introduction to the 1939 publication The Future of the Social Studies, Michener presented a positive appraisal of the field.
It was, Michener suggested, highly probable that there would be agreement on the major objectives for social studies stated the year before in a National Educational Association publication (Educational Policies Commission 1939). He also observed that "individual textbooks are reaching an unusually high standard of utility." Even though "practice still lags behind our knowledge," he noted, "the field of methods ... [is] fairly well organized," with "the principles of democratic classroom practice ... fairly well agreed upon." In regard to the "preparation of competent teachers," Michener thought that wide study was taking place and "those practices which promise to produce better teachers are rapidly spreading." Moreover, "in evaluation, there is a fairly clear understanding of desirable procedures" (31-32).

Michener summed up:

In fact, there is agreement as to what the [sic]² social studies should accomplish. Usable materials are at hand; methods are being improved; teachers are being prepared to use the newer methods; and evaluation instruments have been perfected to test whether or not the whole process is efficient. (32)

Yet, paradoxically, in his optimistic appraisal of the status of social studies in 1939 and the implications for improved practice, Michener injected a note of reality that was prophetic: "If practice . . . lags behind accepted theory," the reason is that "for the questions of what to teach and when to teach it there are no clear answers" (32, italics in the original).

The quotes from Michener are not intended to impugn his credibility, but to make a point about the stability of the field of social studies. If Michener's piece had come from the computer of a social studies expert in 1995 over half a century later, it would not be criticized as an anachronism. Ironically, the writer would more likely be faulted for presenting an overly rosy appraisal of the present, for describing a status to be sought but not yet attained.

What, then, can be said about the future of social studies?

Future and History

Robert Heilbroner's (1960) book title, The Future as History, sets a particularly appropriate context for contemplating the future of social studies. Heilbroner did not mean to imply a deterministic perspective by his choice of title. That is, he was not suggesting that the future is irrevocably the past repeated. His point was, rather, that historical context must be taken into account in comprehending the present and in anticipating and shaping the future, in part because those who act today are not dissimilar from those who shaped the past. Contemplation of the past is essential if significant reconstruction of the future is to occur. In that context, analysis of another part of Michener's 1939 introduction to The Future of the Social Studies provides the basis for exploring a crucial element of that future.

Breaking Loose from the Past

Michener (1939/1991) listed six areas to which the "principal problems associated with the social studies" could be assigned. The areas constitute the following tasks to be carried out by educators:
(1) Decide upon the objectives for which the social studies will be taught. (2) Construct courses which will attain these objectives. (3) Select and arrange the necessary materials for use in these courses. (4) Determine what methods shall be used. (5) Prepare teachers to administer the courses thus established. (6) Evaluate the entire procedure. (31)

Aside from the artificial separation in the list of the interactive and interdependent activities of course construction, materials selection, and methods decisions, there is a glaring omission of a task crucial to whether the future of social studies will be more than its past: the development of a sound, shared rationale for the curriculum, the experiences to be provided students. The development of a rationale involves the explication, examination for validity and consistency, and coherent statement of the basic principles and beliefs that are to be used, or should be used, to structure the curriculum (Shaver 1977b). To be productive, efforts to attack the six problem areas proposed by Michener must be based on such a carefully constructed intellectual frame.

The significance of rationale development was not unaddressed in the 1930s as The Future of the Social Studies was being prepared. In 1934, in his classic, The Nature of the Social Sciences in Relation to Objectives of Instruction, Charles Beard (1934) had emphasized the "fundamental and inescapable" conclusion that every human has a frame of social reference, a "picture of arrangements deemed real, possible, and desirable," with "any formulation of objectives, selection of materials, or organization of knowledge . . . controlled fundamentally" by that frame. If that frame is not clarified and informed, Beard stressed, "then small, provincial, local, class, group, or personal prejudices" will determine the curricular choices that must inevitably be made (181, 183). John Dewey (1938/1964), too, had emphasized the importance of "a well-thought-out philosophy," so that educational practices would not be "under the control of customs and traditions that have not been examined or in response to immediate social pressures" (17).

The purpose here again is not to be critical of Michener, but to highlight the future as history in social studies. Lack of emphasis on the conscious explication and examination of beliefs and assumptions and their curricular implications, and lack of "thought about purpose and about the ways in which technique, content, and organization fulfill or alter purpose" (Silberman 1970, 379), continue to characterize social studies education, as they do other educational areas. The lack of such critical introspection in social studies has resulted in textbook-based curricula that frequently lack relevance to the commonly stated aim of citizenship education (Engle, forthcoming; Shaver 1977a).

Given the tendency to teach as one has been taught, can the textbook-recitation pattern be broken in social studies? Teachers operate within many social and institutional constraints, including the traditional content and instructional expectations of parents, students, other teachers, and principals. But, as noted earlier, there are ample instances of teachers who break from the mold and make social studies relevant and exciting.

Significant, broad change in social studies curricula will come with teachers' awareness and analysis of assumptions that influence their instruction. For that reason, the limited attention in most teacher education programs to the examination of questions of "Why?", with the emphasis instead on "What?" and "How?", is a serious concern. As with Michener's statement of six "principal problems" of social studies, teacher education is too often focused on the practical matters of stating objectives, preparing lesson plans, and using textbooks and conducting discussions, and with the review of new materials and programs. The critical examination of basic assumptions and the development of explicit, sound teaching rationales are too often neglected.

Prospects

What, then, are the prospects for the future of social studies? Given the difficulties that individuals and institutions have in breaking from their pasts, a Larry Cuban writing fifty years hence will probably conclude that the history of social studies teaching is still a tale of "constancy and change," with more stability than change (Cuban 1991, 199, 204).

Given the difficulties in schooling prognostication discussed earlier, that prediction must be made with some trepidation. What, you might ask, of the technological age in which we are immersed? Surely, computer technology will revolutionize the teaching of social studies within a few years. Going out on a prognostic limb, I propose that it will not.

Futurists typically envision a markedly different world just around the corner. Technological innovation, however, seems often to pass schools by or to have little influence. The Model-T Ford to jet aircraft symbolization of change is not applicable to the classroom; in social studies, the recitation of today is often not very different from that of several decades ago (Cuban 1991, 204-205). The advent of television was not only going to have an impact on society and family, but radically change instruction in schools. The first occurred-witness the quick-ad, splash nature of presidential campaigns, the instant audio-visual contact with world events that made the Vietnam and Gulf Wars household experiences, and the replacement of reading with viewing. Television became a force to be considered as a context for schooling (Splaine 1991), but has had little direct influence on the conduct of classroom instruction.

The same factors that restricted television use will limit the classroom impacts of computer technology: lack of hardware; inadequate quality and quantity of programming; the difficulty, without careful consideration by programmers, of how and where their products might fit, in integrating programming into the curriculum. Perhaps most important, as was the case with most of the New Social Studies projects of the 1960s and 1970s and with educational television, the funding will not be available to develop products for classroom use that can compete successfully for students' attention with those from the private entertainment enterprise. The brightest, most creative talent will continue to be drawn to business and entertainment by the personal financial opportunities and by the availability of capital for risky product development and for creatively satisfying products. Similarly, as with educational materials in the past, persons with innovative programming concepts to stir students' imaginations will find it difficult to locate producers.

Computer technology will likely be at the periphery of social studies instruction, as perhaps it should in a curriculum area oriented to the social.³ Moreover, market forces, real and imagined, will keep the textbook genre in its powerful position. Publishers will argue that innovative products will not sell (and given the orientation of many teachers and pinched local budgets, there will be truth to that claim); university educators will lament the lack of innovative products; and most teachers will continue to use textbook-recitation instruction, along with the relatively unimaginative and dated technological products that will be available to them. University professors, curriculum specialists, and a few teachers will continue to make presentations on innovative curricula at conferences such as the annual National Council for the Social Studies conference, but still with little more effect than that of the New Social Studies of the 1960s and 1970s.

In brief, Michener's appraisal in 1939 will continue to be a more optimistic foreshadowing of the future of social studies than its history suggests. At the same time, at the classroom level, many individual teachers will continue to provide students with the challenging, socially relevant experiences envisioned in the social studies curriculum standards recently released by NCSS (1994). Despite the systemic intransigence of American schooling, the National Council for the Social Studies can, through the support it provides to teachers, do much to ensure that for many students the future of social studies will be dramatically different from its past.

Notes

¹ Details of Michener's career come from Michener (1970), Galvez (1991), and two items by Wilbur Murra: a memo, "Michener and the NCSS," November 14, 1994, and "A Memoir: The NCSS and the Michener Connection," prepared for the NCSS Foundations of Social Studies Special Interest Group meeting in Phoenix, November 19, 1994.

² Sic is inserted to indicate a common, but questionable, appellation-"the social studies"-and to remind readers of the basic curricular issue it implies. Is the proper designation "the social studies," indicating a collection of individual subjects; or is it "social studies" (as in, as an alternative to Michener's terminology, "there is agreement as to what social studies should accomplish"), to indicate a curricular area that has, or should have, some central structuring purpose, such as citizenship education?

³ As Neil Postman has observed, schooling is about "teaching children how to behave in groups ... to turn narcissistic children into a public," tasks that may not be feasible through technology. Quoted in "The Future of Technology in Education Challenged at EDUCOM '93," EDUCOM Update, November/December 1993, 1.

References

Beard, Charles A. The Nature of the Social Sciences in Relation to Objectives of Instruction. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 193

Berman, Paul, and Milbrey W. McLaughlin. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. VIII: Implementing and Sustaining Innovations. Report to the U.S. Office of Education. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, 1978.

Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960.Cuban, Larry. "History of Teaching in Social Studies." In Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, edited by James P. Shaver. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Dewey, John. "The Relation of Science and Philosophy as a Basis for Education." In John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings, edited by Reginald D. Archambault. New York: Random House, 1964. (Original work published 1938)

Educational Policies Commission. Purposes of Education in American Democracy. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1939.

Engle, Shirley H., and David W. Saxe. "Foreword." In Handbook on Teaching Social Issues, edited by Ronald W. Evans and David W. Saxe. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, forthcoming.

Fenton, Edwin, and John M. Good. "Project Social Studies: A Progress Report." Social Education 29 (1965): 206-208.Galvez, Cleta M. "Michener's Early Work: The Foundation Years." In James A. Michener on the Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1991.

Heilbroner, Robert L. The Future as History. New York: Grove Press, 1960.

Leming, James S. "The Two Cultures of Social Studies Education." Social Education 53 (1989): 404-408.Michener, James A. "The Mature Social Studies Teacher." Social Education 34 (1970): 760-767

Michener, James A. "The Problem of the Social Studies." In The Future of the Social Studies, Curriculum Series, No. 1, 1939, edited by James A. Michener. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies. Reprinted in James A. Michener on the Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1991.

National Council for the Social Studies. Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: NCSS, 1994.

Oliver, Donald W., and James P. Shaver. Teaching Public Issues in the High School. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1974. (original work published in 1966)

Sewall, Gilbert T. "American History Textbooks: Where Do We Go From Here?" Phi Delta Kappan 69 (1988): 552-558.

Sewall, Gilbert T. "Social Studies Textbooks in the 1990s." Publishing Research Quarterly 8 (1992/93): 6-11.

Shaver, James P. "A Critical View of the Social Studies Profession." Social Education 41 (1977a): 300-307.

Shaver, James P. "The Task of Rationale-building for Citizenship Education." In Building Rationales for Citizenship Education, edited by James P. Shaver. Arlington, Va.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977b.

Shaver, James P. "Citizenship, Values, and Morality in the Social Studies." In The Social Studies. Eightieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II, edited by Howard D. Mehlinger and O. L. Davis. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Shaver, James P. "The New Social Studies, Textbooks, and Reform in Social Studies." Publishing Research Quarterly 8 (1992/93): 23-32.

Shaver, James P., O. L. Davis, Jr., and Suzanne W. Helburn. "An Interpretive Report on the Status of Precollege Social Studies Education Based on Three NSF-Funded Studies." In What are the Needs in Precollege Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education? Views from the Field. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1980.

Shaver, James P., and Donald W. Oliver. "The Structure of the Social Sciences and Citizenship Education." In Democracy, Pluralism, and the Social Studies: Readings and Commentary, edited by James P. Shaver and Harold Berlak. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York: Random House, 1970.Splaine, John E. "The Mass Media as an Influence on Social Studies." In Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, edited by James P. Shaver. New York: Macmillan, 1991.

Stake, Robert E., and Jack A. Easley. Case Studies in Science Education. Urbana-Champaign, Ill.: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition, University of Illinois, 1978.

Weiss, Iris R. Report of the 1977 National Survey of Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies Education. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: 1978.

Wiley, Karen B. The Status of Pre-College Science, Mathematics, and Social Science Education: 1955-1975. Volume III: Social Science Education. Boulder, Colo.: Social Science Education Consortium, 1977.

James P. Shaver is Dean of the School of Graduate Studies and Professor of Secondary Education at Utah State University. He is the author of numerous publications, and was the editor of the Handbook on Social Studies Teaching and Learning (1991).

Interview with Dr. John Haefner

By Mary Hepburn

John Haefner was NCSS President over 40 years ago, in 1953-farther back in time than any other current NCSS member who has served as President. In this interview, he shares his reflections on social studies education then and now, and on the constant challenges facing NCSS. The interview was conducted for Social Education by Mary Hepburn in November 1994. A former student of Dr. Haefner, Dr. Hepburn is professor of social science education and head of the Citizen Education Division at the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, Athens.

Mary Hepburn: John Haefner, I would like to obtain your perspective on social studies education over the years since you served as president of National Council for the Social Studies. In 1952 you were elected president of NCSS and served as the presiding officer throughout 1953. You wrote the preface to the 1953 yearbook, a book on the teaching of social studies skills, which you referred to as citizenship skills, such as gathering and evaluating information, communicating, and critical thinking. Please take us back to that mid-50s era. What kinds of times were those? What was the social-political context for social studies education then?

John Haefner: Well, I'll start with the annual meeting. In 1952 I served as the national meeting chairman. That job was given to the upcoming president. That year, the National Council was to meet in the South, in Dallas, Texas, and that caused real concern among the planners. NCSS was a racially integrated organization, and we had learned that people of color and whites had not previously been permitted to sit down together at the same tables in hotel dining rooms there. I had heard that this was the first time that a racially integrated conference had been held in the hotel where our meeting took place. So, the atmosphere before that particular meeting was very tense. I remember calling to urge key people to come, simply to make sure that educators would make an extra effort to go to Dallas. The worry was that we were going to have a small attendance, because some people were afraid. Well, it didn't turn out that way. The attendance was good, and there were no racial incidents of any kind. The meeting went very well.

MH: That was at Thanksgiving.

JH: Yes, it was 1952, Thanksgiving week. We always met around Thanksgiving-one of our perennial problems! Then, at the end of that year, my presidency of NCSS began. We were looking to define specific goals for social studies education. Our concern was that unless students could read, unless they could evaluate the sources of information they receive, it would be a problem for citizens to exercise their rights of self-government. We were especially aware that the lasting learning that we had to give students required thinking skills to deal with a changing world. And that involved us in analyzing just what kinds of skills and abilities were specifically important to the general field of social studies and more particularly to civic education and democratic citizenship.

On those topics we had some excellent people in the National Council. Many were women who had backgrounds in elementary education and realized the significance of thinking skills, not only for elementary education but as preparation for high school. Names that come to my mind are many of the writers in the 1953 yearbook. People like Helen McCracken Carpenter, Edith West from Minnesota, Prudence Bostwick, Ruth Robinson from Cleveland, and many others who saw that it was critical that NCSS promote skill development in social studies. That was what led to the 1953 yearbook.

It seems to me that a persistent problem of social studies education is our search for focus. We were looking specifically for what social studies education can do and do well that will make a real difference in the quality of the students who graduate from our schools. In my opinion, that problem is still with us in 1994. We aren't focused. We aren't clear on our purpose. And we have all kinds of problems dealing with that lack of clarity. The issue of content versus method; the problem of values education; and this issue of emphasis on skills, which dates back to the fifties.

At that time we were saying, "Let's take a look at what we can do to enable a high school graduate to make the most of the citizenship role." First of all, the concern was on how to deal with information materials, especially the news media-all kinds of media. The emphasis was also on the problem of judging and evaluating and being aware of the fact that communication requires a lot of very specific skills to deal with language meaningfully and fairly.

MH: The years you are talking about are those that we often refer to as "the McCarthy era." It was the period when Senator Joseph McCarthy and others made wild accusations of communist subversion throughout our public institutions. The accusations, carried in the news media, generated fear and created a rather oppressive atmosphere for educators. Did such conditions stimulate interest in NCSS in improving analytical thinking skills?

JH: I think so. This was the time when propaganda studies were coming into the curriculum. We were also facing inquiries about what materials we were using in schools. I was a teacher in the University of Iowa High School from 1936 until it was closed in 1972. I recall being questioned by a member of the American Legion. In my senior class, I was doing a unit on Communism. My students were using the Bolton Report, a government publication, to study the strategies and tactics of world communism. I also had the students reading parts of The Communist Manifesto and using a popular picture magazine published in the Soviet Union that was available in the U.S. Well, the American Legion sent a man to question me about that. Yes, the times were such that you gave a lot of thought to what you were teaching and how you were teaching it. Perhaps the skills focus was one way of avoiding the content of controversial issues. But the teachers who were creative and innovative were using skills specifically to examine what propaganda is, how it affects us, and how to confront it in our daily lives.

So, the year of my presidency was an interesting year, one that was memorable in many different ways. However, it has taken many more years for the ideas of the 1953 NCSS yearbook to have an impact on actual procedures in the classroom.

That leads to another observation about the present, which is that innovation is especially difficult in the classroom. I see that conditions for teaching today are much different than they were in the fifties. I don't know if I could cope with high school teaching in the same way that I did then. It leads me to think, Mary, that one of our biggest problems in social studies education is the fact that anything that we do to try to change the quality of education is affected in large measure by two terribly important cultural and societal changes that have occurred.

The first of these is that the values of our culture have undergone some significant changes. The emphasis is on "things." Success is measured in terms of dollars. The emphasis is on non-intellectual pursuits. This cultural context determines to a great extent what we can do with boys and girls in secondary school. I think that we need to be aware of the fact that in some areas progress will be slow, and there are goals we simply cannot accomplish because of changed cultural values. Many children bring from home values and attitudes that make it difficult to educate them. Students' motivations, their goals, I think, are vastly different from the goals of the boys and girls of the fifties and the sixties.

Another related factor is the change wrought by World War II and intensified in the last few decades. One of the most significant changes is the prevalence of women in the work force. We are now very aware of how that has changed the family and family organization. So, in these 42 years the forms of home life and home support for school education have changed.

MH: Have they declined considerably?

JH: Yes. For comparison, let me tell you about an experience. About the time I was retiring, I had the occasion to observe in depth a classroom in Des Moines, Iowa, that was composed mostly of eastern Asian children. Although there were other students, it was a classroom where English was a second language. Well these youngsters were enthusiastic about learning. You could pick them out by their attention in the classroom. You would notice the promptness and carefulness with which they did their assigned homework. Their attitudes were different. The answer was clearly that these East Asian children came from homes where the families were convinced that education was the way to succeed in America.

MH: So you're saying that, along with changes in the values of our culture, we have these changes in home life which have greatly influenced schools and affect the way we can teach social studies.

JH: That's right. Among other things, for example, is the fact that many children today are latchkey kids who come to an empty home. We don't know entirely what they do, but a lot of their time is spent watching television. They are watching immense amounts of television, which was not much of a factor 25, 30, or 40 years ago. (In the years since I was born, I've experienced so many drastic changes in American life that I can't help but look back and try to compare the culture I grew up in with the cultural changes and values of today.)

MH: Let's talk about the news media. As a graduate student here in the late 50s, I came over from the Political Science Department to take your seminar in social studies education. I was interested in teaching government and civics. I have to tell you I was greatly impressed by your attention to critical analysis of the news on public affairs. I still recall a class in which you discussed with us the ways to examine news resources and use them in the classroom. I remember the skills that you demonstrated at that time and encouraged us to teach teachers and then motivate teachers to teach students in schools. Would you urge social studies educators to continue these approaches today? Are they still timely?

JH: In my view they may be more timely today. I was working primarily in terms of print media. But now, many citizens get their information almost wholly from the news on TV. It's clear that if that's all of the news you get, you are not getting an adequate basis on which to make important decisions on legislative issues and public affairs generally.

Yes, I see the need for emphasis on skills to analyze printed materials and sound and visual materials as well. I don't know what the impact of computers is going to be in the years ahead, but the basic problems are the same: All of the media can be manipulated, and as a thinking citizen you've got to try to decide when you are being manipulated by one form of the media or another. So my answer to your question is "yes." I believe that this is terribly important, because, frankly, I don't know how much of the factual information that we learn can be recalled. What do remain, because we have to use them constantly, are the critical, evaluative skills it takes to "understand." To understand, you must have these skills.

MH: I recall that in your office you had a framed front page of a morning edition of a newspaper declaring that Thomas Dewey had won the 1948 election. That was a symbolic and humorous reminder for your students that careful reading and critical speculation about "the news" is necessary. Would you still stress caution with electronic news sources?

JH: It was the Chicago Tribune for the day after the election and it had a banner headline "Dewey Elected," although he lost when the late votes came in. A student teacher in my high school class brought the paper in the morning. You know, she didn't realize what she had. I asked her if I could have it, and she gave it to me. I think it was a great example of how we have to mistrust some of the things that come to us through the media. People believe what they see in print, and today many believe what they see on the TV. What concerns me is that the visual picture is, in many people's minds, even more reliable than reading. At least with reading you can always go back and check it over and say, "Hey, I'm not sure I believe that now." You can't do that with pictures that flash by on the screen.

Walter Cronkite, the grand old man of television news, commented that if all the information about public issues that people get comes from television news reports, then the public is inadequately prepared for civic life. On one of our much-watched TV stations, the 10 o'clock news has a segment called "The World in a Minute." What can you say about Bosnia or prospects for peace in the Middle East in a minute that will lead to understanding about those complex problems?

MH: Yet the other side of the coin is that now we can see and hear from Bosnia very quickly. If something happens in the Middle East, we receive images of the event very rapidly. We've gained in speed of information dissemination, but we haven't gained in depth of news, have we?

JH: You're absolutely right, and that's why television has so much impact. It arouses emotions. And it can do a lot of good in that regard. We see the inhumanity of warfare and of brutal things that are going on. Related to the skills question, we need those skills to make it possible for us to raise questions about human behavior.

MH: I'd like to ask you to reflect on the social studies profession over the years. NCSS is reaching a large number of social studies professionals across the United States through its journals, newsletters, and meetings. As you look back over the last forty years, what do you consider to have been the most serious issues in the profession?

JH: Well, that's not an easy one. Just getting classroom teachers more involved in the national organization was a major problem and in my view still is. However, we've made a lot of progress in that regard, because the figures now are immensely different from what they were when I was president. And that's good. I guess one of the major problems that I have seen is that the leaders in social studies education have developed the field somewhat distantly from the great number of teachers. I mean, the leaders were the ones who presented papers. Primarily, they were the ones who wrote chapters for the yearbook. They were the ones who determined philosophy, and so on. And there were some really great pioneers in the area. But the problem of getting from that level to the average classroom teacher in order to modify behavior in the classroom has been an ongoing challenge. A few years ago, a major study showed that a relatively small percentage of classroom teachers subscribed to professional journals, and many who were members of the national professional organization were not really capitalizing on the resources of the council. Now, as I read the annual meeting program, I'm encouraged by the involvement of so many classroom teachers, and the hands-on types of things presented there.

However, I sometimes wonder if we are tending to concentrate too heavily on the "hands-on" approach and if we are at times failing to consider that without theory, practice can be pretty second rate. Someone once said, "Study theory or remain forever a bungler in practice." You've got to be guided by some clear purpose and a theoretical context. This gap between theory and practice is one of those persisting issues in education.

I think that key issues in the profession were highlighted when Howard Mehlinger, also a former president of NCSS, wrote dramatically, "Perhaps social studies is even dead, and we have been too busy to notice or unwilling to admit it."¹ He went on to make some very penetrating observations. He said there are three gulfs, major gaps in social studies education. The first gulf is between education in general and what the public sees as education. This is the gulf between what we're doing in schools and what the public thinks of us. That's a huge gap, and in many cases, an almost unbridgeable one. The second gulf is between the so-called leaders of education (and by leaders he meant curriculum directors, state education people, professors of education in social studies, etc.) and the classroom teacher. You know, there is some objective evidence that he's right on that, too. In one survey teachers admitted that they felt they got little help from outside consultants who were brought into their schools. The third gulf he said was that between the academic scholars (professors of history and the social sciences in colleges and universities) and social studies specialists -another distance we must bridge.

In that article, Mehlinger discussed what he considered to be two major needs that social studies education had to confront. One was a fresh look at the scope and sequence of what was being taught in the social studies. Of course, in recent years there has been considerable work done to recommend scope and sequence, and they've produced several possible alternatives. Second was the need for another national commission on the social studies to bring together all of these people caught in the gulfs, that is, lay citizens, teachers, administrators, academicians. Yes, we should try to bring these people together and look at what could be done "to deal with the questions of scope and sequence and values instruction"² in order to improve social studies education. Although the article is about 14 years old, I think it was a real milestone.

It led me to reflect on an idea that kind of fascinates me, but I think has a lot of difficulties connected with it. Let me try it out on you. The motivation, the interests, the backgrounds from which today's students come are so vastly diverse that the attempt to meet their needs in the typical comprehensive American high school is now an issue. Sometimes I envision a campus, instead of a single high school, that would serve a larger group. The student with a special interest in the arts, the student with a special interest in the humanities, the student with a special interest in mathematics or science vocations, would have special opportunities. So would students interested in auto mechanics, farming, electronics, business, and other service occupations. I'm not sure how many grades you would include, or how many separate specialties you would have, but I think it would make a difference in meeting the interests of the students and therefore increasing their motivation for learning. Motivation to learn, I consider to be a basic problem that exists now. Yet I'm fearful of making educational programs too separate. We must have common experiences, because students are going to live in one society with all kinds of diverse people, and the school ought to give them some familiarity with that diversity. Maybe we are moving in this direction by the number of alternative schools we are now developing, as well as the notion of the magnet school. Can these be unified on one campus and still meet more specifically the needs of different kinds of students?

MH: When you talk about schools and bringing diverse students together, I think of the university schools which were prominent when I was a doctoral student in the sixties. We had one at Florida State University. Also, the University of Iowa's school was well known from the social studies literature on innovative curriculum designs and teaching methods. What are your views today on university schools linked to a university program in social studies education?

JH: Well I have very definite views on that. The University of Iowa high school started in 1917, but it was phased out in 1972. I thought at that time it was a mistake and 23 years later I'm absolutely convinced it was a mistake, because there were innovations being tried that had promise for making change. Why was it closed? We simply did not publish enough about the high school. We defeated ourselves by not making greater efforts to get the results out to other educators. But lets look at its contributions. The structure of the school was quite different. It was very open, and as an example, as a department head, I was aware that my department had immense liberty to create courses and to suggest procedures. There was not an "us versus the administration" feeling. We felt we were a team working on improvement. When the administration expressed concerns that what we were planning might not be possible to do, we, in turn, would often reply, "Well, let's try it" or "let's see if we can find a way to do it." I think that trust between those who were teaching in the school and the administration made a terrific difference in the climate of education. Another important difference was the quality of the teaching staff. The only permanent members were the department heads. All of the faculty within the departments consisted of bright young graduate students. Their majors, in many instances, were history, political science, and sociology, rather than education, although they did considerable graduate work in education, too. What they demonstrated was a philosophy that the university held (and that I held and still hold) based primarily on the work of Ernest Horn: that good teaching starts with command of the subject you are teaching. Then you try to find the most effective ways of communicating that knowledge to boys and girls. These graduate students carried that idea with them when they graduated and went to other institutions to educate teachers. To answer your question succinctly, I think the good campus school used as a laboratory for change is a fine thing, and I regret that we have backed away from this idea as much as we have in the U.S.

Notes
¹ Mehlinger, Howard D. "Social Studies: Some Gulfs and Priorities." Chapter XIII in The Social Studies. Eightieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Howard D. Mehlinger and O.L. Davis, eds. NSSE, 1981. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

² Ibid.