ON THE ALLEGED DEMISE OF SOCIAL STUDIES: THE ECLECTIC CURRICULUM IN

TIMES OF STANDARDIZATION—A HISTORICAL SKETCH

DAVID WARREN SAXE

Social studies is a survivor, enduring as a mainstay of the American curriculum for nearly 100 years. Its
longevity is not a tribute to its curricular power nor can we credit a cadre of finely trained professionals
for maintaining its influence. Rather, social studies’ remarkable survival is due to the near-universal
acceptance of the idea that this chameleon-like entity allows practitioners to cast and recast its form and
substance into whatever shape desired. This flexible-all-inclusive-eclectic nature of social studies stems
from its first “official definition” issued in 1916.
The social studies are understood to be those whose subject matter relate to the organization and development
of human society, and to man as a member of social groups.1

At the turn of the century, in looking toward the future, all that America had become (i.e.,
its inventive genius, its unlimited resources harnessed, its great commercial and industrial power,
its magnificent cities and its teeming humanity) rested on the ability of “man as a member of
social groups” to negotiate the issues, problems, and concerns that such modernity created. In the
face of these realities, the curricular needs of American society could only be met by attending to
“man’s” contemporary social aspects, not his past. Here, the engine of American education
would be enlisted to serve the people. As children were freed from their bolted down nineteenth
century seats, social studies, a new flexible and unregimented twentieth century curricular
program, was invented to meet the demands of this progressive new society.
In practice, social studies “content” would be drawn from the whole of human experience and
was purposely not tied to any specific content area. And, what was the purpose of studying this content?
According to the seminal 1916 Committee on Social Studies, which introduced the field to American
educators:
The social studies differ from other studies by reason of their social content rather than in social aim; for
the keynote of modern education is ‘social efficiency,’ and instruction in all subjects should contribute to
this end….[F]rom the nature of their content, the social studies afford peculiar opportunities for the
training of the individual as a member of society….[S]ociety may be interpreted to include the human race
… The social studies should cultivate a sense of membership in the ‘world community,’ with all the
sympathies and sense of justice that this involves as among the different divisions of human society.2

Throughout the twentieth century, educators applied this loose concept of social studies as the
basis for creating experimental curricula. Often in strong opposition, another cast of “social studies”
figures drew inspiration and content from the older traditional history curriculum introduced at the end of
the nineteenth century. Like any other educational innovation, social studies was not created in a vacuum.
Its invention was as much a reaction to prevailing curricula as it was an innovation. For citizenship
education purposes, what existed in most high schools prior to social studies was a history-centered
program introduced by the Committee of Seven, in 1899, calling for formal studies in ancient, medieval,
modern and American histories as gateways toward effective citizenship.3
Issued under the authority of the American Historical Association, the four-block program for
high schools was designed to furnish students “as citizens of a free state” with the “mental equipment” to
comprehend the “political and social problems that will confront him in everyday life.”4 “The greatest aim
of education,” the Committee of Seven claimed, “was to impress upon the learner a sense of duty and
responsibility, and an acquaintance with his human obligations.”5 The Committee was adamant that the
curriculum include:
four years of work, beginning with ancient history and ending with American histor…and recommend that
they be studied in the order in which they are set down, which in large measure accords with the natural
order of events, and shows the sequence of historical facts…. No one of these fields can be omitted without
leaving serious lacunae in the pupil’s knowledge of history.6

Although the Committee of Seven report did not contain the amount of specific content as found
in modern state history standards from such states as California, Massachusetts, or Virginia, or even the
recently condemned National Standards for History, publishers nonetheless supplied textbooks well-
stocked with dates, events, personalities and issues all chronologically arranged and largely standardized
throughout the industry. In 1935, when the textbook was the curriculum, Rolla Tryon wrote that “the fact
of the matter is that a textbook intended for high school use in history published between 1900-1915 had
hard ‘sledding’ if it failed to claim that it conformed to the report of the Committee of Seven.”7 Tryon
also noted that “for at least two decades after [the Committee of Seven report appeared], high school
courses in history in the United States were almost 100 percent dictated by it. Even today [1935] more
than a generation after the publication of the report, its influence is dominating in probably one-third of
the high schools of the country.”8
Despite the virtual lock on schools, the history-centered curriculum was attacked by social studies
insurgents for more than a decade before the 1916 Committee on Social Studies completed its work. In
reaction to a growing number of critiques that held the history curriculum as unsuited to the pressures and
realities of modern life, historian John Bach McMaster responded confidently in 1905, that in the
“process of Americanizing the foreigner [and all other children] we must fill their minds with the facts of
American history which they may not understand, but which they must take as so much medicine.”9
In contrast, social worker Jane Addams, well acquainted with settling recent immigrants in
Chicago, argued in 1907 that “the usual effort to found a new patriotism upon American history is often
an absurd undertaking.”10 Between these two positions, the hard-edge of Americanization applied to
children and the softer progressive position that worked from the needs and interests of children, the
social studies movement emerged.
Although social studies theorists had argued persuasively enough to gain the support of the U.S.
Bureau of Education as well as the sponsoring National Education Association in advancing social
studies, the history curriculum did not disappear. In fact, as Tryon noted, the Committee of Seven’s
history program survived intact in many schools through World War II. Moreover, this author can attest
that traces of the four-block scheme continued into the 1960s as his high school offered the Committee of
Seven’s four-block program. Despite history’s resiliency, the critics’ point that history’s contribution to
the modern curriculum could only be useful if it cast light on contemporary problems proved potent, if not
commanding. Although the stewards of history sought to maintain the traditional history curriculum to
“train the intellect,” social studies practitioners relentlessly pressed their demands that every content area
must pass the test of social utility as a subject area that contributed to understanding and resolving
contemporary social problems.
Given the flexibility of school systems to determine their own methods and programs for
citizenship education, in time, some came to see social studies as history, geography, civics and
government, economics, and other content areas loosely constructed around the teaching of citizenship.
Others saw social studies as a unique field in its own right where young citizens learned the process-skills
and methodologies necessary for citizenship. Until the 1990s, when the standards movement took hold in
most states, it did not matter if a local school district followed a history-center approach to citizenship
education or if it adopted any one of dozens of social studies approaches to citizenship.
Thus, before the state standards movement, these two or three traditions of the field—to be
content-centered or process-centered or some combination of both—fit neatly under the big tent of social
studies. Programs and curricula may have differed from school to school, but all were identified by the
same name: social studies. With the push for greater specificity and accountability in the standards-base
movement instituted at the end of the twentieth century, those who wished to maintain social studies as a
term of eclectic convenience were confronted with public polices and state regulations that demanded a
specific curriculum with defined content and skills to be taught, learned, and assessed for all schools
within state authority. One hundred years ago, educators and policymakers had instituted a prescriptive
program in history education. Taking up the educational philosophy of John Dewey, some eighty years
ago, social studies advocates instituted a loosely constructed citizenship program that marginalized
history. In turn, by the late twentieth century many states adopted a standards-base model that reinstituted
prescriptive curricula. We had traveled full circle.
While some state standards reflected a renewed interest in history-centered (and other discrete
subject matters) and dropped social studies by title, many others simply converted their curricula into
content-centered standards with social studies remaining as the masthead. Still others retained the eclectic
social studies.
The question of whether or not history-centered models will return in force or the eclectic social
studies will recover ground lost in the standards-based movement remains to be answered. However, one
thing is clear throughout the past century: It does not matter if history-centered models were couched as
social studies or if social studies programs presently appear subdued by history-centered initiatives,
neither history nor social studies has fully disappeared in schools. The question posed here is not the fact
that social studies survives in such places as public schools, textbooks, or teacher certification programs,
but whether social studies should survive?
This is not the place to recount the myriad battles between social studies and history nor to
feature the many curricular models that were issued as social studies curricula (readers may consult other
accounts for such treatments).11 Suffice to say, that as the eclectic wing of social studies continued to drift
from one curricular fad to another, the field’s history-centered, disciplinary-focused wing remained
entrenched in certain quarters, poised to return.
Inevitably, as the standards and accountability movement gained traction in the closing decades
of the twentieth century, the eclectic social studies theorists scrambled to maintain their field’s relevance
in the schools at the policy level. As parents and policymakers demanded a clearly defined curriculum
complete with mechanisms to measure the results of teaching, the loose construct of social studies became
a problem. Suddenly, the very characteristics that had sustained social studies over the years—its
flexibility, its adaptability, its contemporary orientation, its absence of a coherent core of knowledge—
became liabilities.
Social studies had invested its capital in a series of fads: life adjustment, expanding environments,
inquiry teaching, values clarification, issues-centered education, reflection, critical thinking, and dozens
of others. Some of these programs featured a transmission of culture and history; others the critical study
of the social sciences; still others sought to replicate social science scholarship. Some of the programs
featured personal development through life experiences; others were meant to use these models to study
social problems or help students to be more reflective; still others sought to induce social activism out of
students.
None, however, managed to command the field and few survived beyond the life-span of its
creators. Typically, led by university gurus and small armies of devoted followers, these eclectic
innovations, seductive in theory, proved unworkable in sustained practice. At the end of his career, Larry
Metcalf, the dean of 1950’s “reflection” models, lamented that “social studies [innovations] never failed,
they were never tried.”12 The reality of the situation was that given the license to invent social studies in
your own image, each generation of social studies practitioners simply reinvented the wheel. The only
tradition of social studies was to start anew.
Yet, the name social studies hung on through all those decades because of its infinite adaptability,
its capacity to adjust to the curricular needs and interests of students as well as the changing ideas of
educators.13 Social studies could be transformed into whatever a school might want. With one curricular
foot in a scattering of subject matters and the other in a multitude of processes, social studies were
everything and nothing. By the 1990s, however, its fluid, ephemeral nature reached a saturation point. At
this time, any experimental, free-form field was challenged by the introduction and spread of “standards.”
This demand provided an opening for surviving content-based programs to emerge. The ideal of
standards-based curricula required core content that spelled out what should be taught and learned—what
every child should know and be able to do. This turn of public policy was better suited for content-
centered programs with specific and detailed standards.
The time had come to retool school curricula and many policymakers turned to the older,
traditional history concept for a roadmap. Many states renamed their programs, reflecting the content-
centered nature of their state standards. For example, Pennsylvania dropped the term social studies
altogether for state certification, favoring instead the more descriptive “citizenship education” as the
masthead of its content-centered standards in history, geography, civics and government and economics.
Other states transitioned to content-based standards, but still retained the term social studies. Nonetheless,
several states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington maintained the older, loose definition of
social studies in their state standards.
If the state standards movement has impacted the way social studies is taught and is thought of in
the various states, it would be instructive to review how this field, seemingly imperious to change, has
changed in the past two decades.
The most potent attack on the eclectic nature of social studies was launched in the 1983
publication of A Nation at Risk. Here, policymakers challenged educators to reinstate subject-based
instruction. By specifically calling for “improved teaching and learning” in history, geography and
economics, the authors of A Nation at Risk, members of the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, leveled their criticisms upon the supposed cause of the “rising tide of mediocrity that
threatened our very future as a Nation and a people:” ineffective, “diluted and diffused,” “smorgasbord”
curricula “that no longer ha[d] a central purpose.”14 That critique fit social studies to a T.
Only seven years earlier, social studies theorists themselves noted the mounting problems of
maintaining a curricular form that had expanded beyond the ability of practitioners to recognize and
articulate the mainlines of this ethereal social stew. Anticipating A Nation at Risk’s critique, Robert Barr,
James Barth, and Samuel Shermis observed:
The field of social studies is…caught up in ambiguity, inconsistency, and contradiction…. The confusion
in the field is apparent…. The content of the social studies is a smorgasbord…. For twelve years many
future social studies teachers are teased and tormented with an incoherent set of experience…with results
that they enter their profession uneasy and confused. We seem to be in deep trouble.15

In recognizing what many theorists in social studies already knew as flaws in the field, authors of
A Nation at Risk sought to reintroduce “rigorous” curricula, directly connected to “excellence” and
accountability. The report ushered in the notion of “common experience” and “high educational
standards.” The critical moment for social studies came six years later in Charlottesville at the 1989
education summit. Here, President George H. W. Bush and the nation’s governors, led by Arkansas
Governor Bill Clinton, prescribed proficiency in the traditional content areas of history and geography (as
well as English, math and science) as essential national education goals. They never even mentioned
social studies. While the direct impact of A Nation at Risk on social studies may have been initially
superficial, the Charlottesville identification of history and not social studies was surely a watershed
moment.
Charlottesville led to the “Goals 2000: Educate America Act” of 1994. This ambitious legislation
included the hopeful assertion that “All children will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated
competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign language,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.”16 Again, social studies did not make the
cut.
Knowing that standards in history, geography, civics and government, and economics would be
written without their direct involvement, the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) leaders
shrewdly opted to create and finance its own standards, Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, in 1994.
Adopting an “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach, the NCSS standards were designed to
complement the four traditional disciplines within social studies. The NCSS standards were pitched to
schools as a mechanism to unite the four major subject areas (history, geography, civics and government
and economics) with other social studies areas (e.g., sociology, anthropology, archeology, psychology).
The once eclectic social studies, now forced to be more standard-like, also sought to highlight
multicultural themes and concepts.
As much as the NCSS tried to hold its audience, its advocates could not stop from shooting
themselves in the foot. As the educational world moved closer to standardization and testing
accountability, the NCSS moved further in the opposite direction with its kitchen-sink like definition of
social studies that was diametrically opposed to the sort of content focus many states had opted for their
state history, geography, civics and government, and economic standards. As featured in the NCSS
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, archeology, 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 17

Obviously, such an all-and-nothing definition mounted a daunting, if not impossible, obstacle for
standards writers attempting to nail down a curriculum. Despite this unwieldy definition, the NCSS
standards might have gained scant traction, but for the unexpected debacle of the proposed National
Standards for History, released in October 1994. Touted as “the first milestone in the development of
standards of excellence for the nation’s schools,” this document came under a withering barrage of
criticism led by former Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynne V. Cheney, who had
helped its creation.
Although the authors of the National Standards of History—based at UCLA’s National Center of
History in Schools—insisted that their work represented a “national consensus” on American history, the
standards turned out mainly to be a “consensus” among multicultural and leftist interpretations of
American history. By January 1995, the criticism had grown so intense that Congressional leaders began
to backpedal on the whole idea of national standards in any field (the English and math standards had also
proven deeply controversial). The nails went into the national standards coffin when the U.S. Senate
condemned the National Standards for History on January 18, 1995. Consequently, the Clinton
administration’s Goals 2000 program shifted its focus from national to state standards.
When the National Standards for History took its well-deserved lumps, the poorly constructed
ten-strand NCSS social studies standards passed under the educational radar completely unnoticed.
Suddenly, just as the national standards-based movement appeared to bury eclectic, unanchored social
studies models, the come-back kid of the school curriculum was given a new lease on life.
Namely, the demise of the National Standards for History left a void in school curricula that the
NCSS standards quickly filled—proof that the social studies remained a viable element of school life.
Capitalizing on this opening, as the state standards movement spread, the NCSS pressed to maintain its
presence within the standards movement as well as its influence over the one area of the educational
system left untouched by state policy regulations, control of state teacher certification programs in
colleges and universities. Still, the NCSS standards had problems of their own. The field’s practice of
basing content on contemporary concerns worried policy makers seeking to return to basic knowledge and
skills with a more descriptive curriculum.
While flying the flag of eclectic social studies, many social studies leaders remained less
concerned with teaching history and civics than with using their version of the past to promote ideological
agendas. The influx of multicultural themes, those that highlighted particular cultures, ethnicities, sexual
orientations, class and other human characteristics rooted in modern political contexts, swamped any
pretext of political neutrality and objectivity. If the patent patronizing to minorities groups (to curry
political capital) was not bad enough, teachers were inundated with over-stuffed “cultural” and “social
justice” curricula spread a mile long and an inch deep.
 Earlier critics of social studies had worried that social studies ignored chronology and historical
context, not that it was ideologically tilted. After all, one quality of social studies was that its adaptable
and inclusive nature was non-judgmental. All sides of issues were open to scrutiny and debate and
ideologically charged “answers” were recognized and condemned as propaganda.18 Though proselytizing
for social justice is often couched in terms of promoting diversity, in fact, such efforts cause social studies
to violate its own eclectic nature by rejecting the tenet of neutrality and openness that was once part of its
credo.
As social studies forswears its traditional eclecticism, the cycle of reform has come full circle.
With the implementation of statewide standards, social studies advocates in many states could no longer
count on flexibility or rely on opportunistic lessons drawn from the supposed needs and fleeting interests
of students and teachers.19 This position favors the return of history-centered (content centered) models.
Still, to many policymakers, although the ideal of state standards demands that all children receive
rigorous, essential knowledge and skills in various school subjects, including history, geography,
civics and government, and economics, the truth is that not all states have taken up this
reasonable cause. While a number of states continue to cling to social studies in name, the state
standards movement has put a significant dent in the eclectic social studies. However, with many
states promoting the NCSS’s multicultural and morally relativistic curricula, we certainly have
yet to see a strong movement within the educational establishment back to rigorous history
standards.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, on one end of the policy-making spectrum, we find
ourselves returning to the prescriptive curricular model that once prevailed at the end of the nineteenth
century. On the other end of this spectrum, we find proponents of the NCSS standards, fiercely defending
their turf. The issue for us is, will the movement to replace social studies with history and civics gain
momentum and force curricular change?
In 1899, the teaching of American history served as the gateway to citizenship education.
To illustrate just one bit of the big picture, in 2001, Congress authorized the Teaching of
(traditional) American History grant program under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. Its purposes are
(1) to carry out activities to promote the teaching of traditional American history in elementary schools and
secondary schools as a separate academic subject (not as a component of social studies).

(2) for the development, implementation, and strengthening of programs to teach traditional American history
as a separate academic subject (not as a component of social studies) within elementary school and secondary
school curricula, including the implementation of activities.20

Social studies advocates can hardly miss the handwriting on this Congressional wall: The focus of
this grant features American history “not as a component of social studies.” Although the success of
American history as the centerpiece of citizenship education within the context of a state standards model
remains to be proven, the fact that social studies lobbyists have consistently failed to persuade policy-
makers to retain their program suggests that there might be some serious chinks in the social studies grip
on public schooling.
Still, would that the dead be buried with their bones. As the eclectic social studies may appear to
be in a serious tailspin among select policymakers (and much of the public hardly knows it even exists),
its influence hangs on. Social studies standards persist in nearly a third of state education standards. In
addition, teacher certification programs that guard the gateway to public school teaching are manned by
social studies stalwarts. State departments of education also defer to colleges and universities whose
social studies professors continue to train the square pegs of social studies to fit in the round holes of
history-centered state standards. Finally, “nervous nellies” in the textbook industry continue to publish
social studies curricular materials unanchored to state history standards, hopeful that the disconnect
between policy makers, higher education, and public schools will not leave them with warehouses of
useless products. While we should not write the eulogy for social studies, considering that the twentieth
century began with a history focus for citizenship education, in time it might be more accurate to say that
history-centered citizenship education is the real survivor…for what goes around is finally coming around
again.

NOTES
1. From the 1916 Committee on Social Studies Report, as reprinted in David Warren Saxe, 1991, Social
Studies in Schools: A History of the Early Years (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 204.
2. Ibid., 204-05.
3. American Historical Association, Report of the Committee of Seven (New York: Macmillan, 1899).
4. Ibid., 16.
5. Ibid., 35.
6. Ibid., 34-35.
7. Rolla M. Tryon, Social Sciences as School Subjects (New York: Charles Scribners, 1935), 27
8. Ibid., 24.
9. John Bach McMaster, in American Historical Association, “Conference on Public School History
Teachers,” (Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office, 1905), 3-4.
10. Jane Addams, “Influence of Foreign Population on Teaching History and Civics,” In Proceedings of
North Central History Teachers Association (Chicago: NCHTA, 1907), 3-4.
11. I have covered the origins of social studies in a number of other publications. Scholars might review the
following as necessary: David W. Saxe, “American Social Studies and Traditional History,” in Hans Albin Larsson,
ed.,1998, Historiedidaktiska Utmaningar (Jönköping, Sweden: Jönköping University Press, 1998); David W. Saxe,
Social Studies in Schools; David W. Saxe, “Social Studies Foundations: A Brief View of the Social Education
Debate, c.1910s,” in James L. Barth, ed., Foundations of Social Studies Bulletin 1 (January 1989): 20-30; David W.
Saxe, “Salient Dates of Social Studies: 1857-1940,” International Journal of Social Education 6, no. 2 (Autumn
1991): 11-18; David W. Saxe, “An Introduction to the Seminal Social Welfare and Efficiency Prototype: The
Founders of 1916 Social Studies,” Theory and Research in Social Education 20, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 156-178;
David W. Saxe, “Framing a Theory for Social Studies Foundations,” Review of Educational Research 62, no. 3 (Fall
1992): 259-77; and David W. Saxe, “Establishing a Voice for History in Schools: The First History Methods
Textbooks, 1896-1902,” Theory and Research in Social Education 22, no. 4 (Fall 1994): 482-514.
12. As quoted in David Warren Saxe, “Whatever Happened to the Socials Studies?” International Journal
of Social Education 4, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 54.
13. I refer readers to the following who might seek more detail on social studies in the 20th century to
David Jenness, Making Sense of Social Studies (New York: Macmillan, 1990) and to explore social studies in the
context of 20th century educational reform, Diane Ravitch, Left Back (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
14. Terrance Bell, A Nation at Risk (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1983).
15. Robert Barr, James Barth, and Samuel Shermis, Defining Social Studies, (Arlington, Va.: National
Council for the Social Studies, 1977), 1-4.
16. Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing
Office, 1994), 70.
17. National Council for the Social Studies, Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (Washington, D.C.:
National Council for the Social Studies, 1994), vii.
18. See Shirley Engle and Anna Ochoa, Education for Democratic Citizenship (New York: Teachers
College Press, 1988).
19. See David Warren Saxe, The State of State History Standards in 37 States and the District of Columbia
(Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998); and also, David Warren Saxe, “State of State History
Standards,” in Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Michael J. Petrilli, eds., State of State Standards (Washington, D.C.: Thomas
B. Fordham, 2002).
20. Teaching of American History Grant Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2001), United States
Department of Education, (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2001).

Table One:
 A Thumbnail Sketch of the Rise of Social Studies
1900-1916 Theorists present the rationale for social studies, Thomas Jesse Jones and Arthur
critics attack prevailing curricula Dunn introduce the idea that
modern problems should be the
focus of citizenship education;
Led by David Snedden, critics
argue for replacement of history-
centered curricula.
1913-1916 Outline of the Social Studies: National Education With U.S. government backing,
Association’s Committee on the Social Studies social studies is introduced to
American schools.
1921 Organization established to promote social studies National Council for the Social
Studies founded by Harold and
Earl Rugg, Edgar Dawson.
1922-1930s Publishers introduce textbooks and materials in Harold Rugg publishes his
support of social studies “scientifically-based” social
studies series.
1922-1930s Indicating the acceptance of social studies in state Two states lead the way: New
policy, state agencies and local school districts Jersey (1917) by recommending a
institute social studies programs as the course of study and Pennsylvania
official/authorized curriculum (1921) by instituting a state level
office in social studies.
1926-1932 Opposition to social studies is marginalized as one- Social studies is legitimized by
time opponents come into tent the American Historical Society,
which accepts it as a school
subject; AHA co-sponsors the
Commission on Social Studies,
which advances social studies as
the main curricular vehicle for
citizenship education.

Table Two
 A Thumbnail Sketch of the Alleged Demise of Social Studies
1980s Curricula in the eclectic nature of social studies A Nation at Risk report (1983) calls
are judged as ineffective. on policymakers to return to essential
content with accountability.
1989 Policymakers join to demand more effective Education Summit in Charlottesville;
programs for public education, calling for solid approves the framework for Goals
content in history and geography. The National 2000.
Council for the Social Studies is ignored.
1994 Government pays for development of national Goals 2000 Act is signed into law by
academic standards. The NCSS develops its Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.
own independent “content” standards.
1995 Some states with strong history-centered Publication of the Virginia state
standards feature a return to disciplinary history standards
focused school curricula tied directly to state
assessment
1994-2003 Policymakers re-center citizenship curricula on Congress authorizes $250 million for
history, geography, civics and government, and teaching traditional American history
economics. (“not social studies”), first grants
awarded in 2001; President George
W. Bush introduces “We the People”
initiatives to invigorate citizenship
education.