Invited Testing Policy Perspective

Social Studies Educationin the Age of Testingand AccountabilitySusie Burroughs, Mississippi State University,Eric Groce, Appalachia State University, andMary Lee Webeck, University of Texas

With 3 years and counting since its inception, the scope andimpact of No Child Left Behind is now being felt in classroomsacross the nation. Although some successes have been identified,concerns about the implementation and expectations of thelegislation are emerging. As a result of the legislation’s emphasison the development of standards and assessment systems inreading, mathematics, and science, educators of other core andelective subjects are weighing the impact of being left out of theNo Child Left Behind formula of testing and accountability. In anattempt to ascertain the perceptions and sentiments of socialstudies teachers concerning the impact of No Child Left Behindand the concomitant issue of state-level testing andaccountability policy, a tristate study was conducted. Thefindings of this research indicate that although elementary,middle, and high school social studies educators recognize thenegative consequences of being left out of No Child Left Behind,they are not convinced that being included would be better forthem, their students, or social studies education in general.

Keywords: No Child Left Behind, social studies education, testing policy,testing and accountability, state testing

W ithin days of his inauguration asthe 43rd president, George W.

Bush announced his plan for the re-newal of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act—education reform leg-islation that has come to be knownas No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Asits name indicates, the overarchinggoal of the legislation is to ensurethat every child—regardless of eco-nomic disadvantage, racial or ethnic

identity, disability, or limited Englishlanguage skills—becomes proficient incore subjects taught in our nation’spublic schools (NCLB Act, 2001). Theinitial implementation model of NCLBmandated assessments in reading andmathematics at three grade spans (3–5, 6–9, 10–12) through the 2004–2005school year. Beginning in 2005–2006,the law requires annual assessments inreading and math for grades 3 through

8. Science assessments are to be addedin 2007–2008, but only at the threegrade spans mentioned above.

The legislation further instructedstates to establish Adequate YearlyProgress (AYP) proficiency targets,with 100% of all students being profi-cient or advanced as the ultimate tar-get to be reached in 2013–2014. Testdata must be disaggregated and re-ported by subgroups with each groupheld to the AYP targets. Schools that

Susie Burroughs is an Associate Pro-fessor at Mississippi State University inthe College of Education’s Departmentof Curriculum and Instruction, Box9705, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762;susie.burroughs@msstate.edu. Her areas ofspecialization are secondary education,social studies education, civic education,and teacher education and professionaldevelopment.

Eric Groce is an Assistant Professorat Appalachian State University, ASUBox 32047, Boone, North Carolina 28608;groceec@appstate.edu. His areas of special-ization are elementary level social studiesand the incorporation of children’s litera-ture within the social studies classroom.

Mary Lee Webeck is an Assistant Pro-fessor in Curriculum and Instruction inthe College of Education at The Uni-versity of Texas at Austin, 1 UniversityStation, D5700, Austin, Texas 78712-0379;webeckm@mail.utexas.edu. Her areas ofspecialization include elementary andmiddle grades social studies, civic edu-cation, Holocaust education, and teacherdevelopment.

Fall 2005 13

do not meet their AYP targets for twoconsecutive years will be identified as“in need of improvement” (INOI), andstudents attending INOI schools mustreceive tutoring or be transferred to an-other school (NCLB Act, 2001).

With 3 years of implementation nowrealized, signs of success resulting fromNCLB can be found. Many states reportthat reading and mathematics scoresare increasing and achievement gapsamong groups have begun to narrow(Spellings, 2005). Education officialsmaintain that increased opportunity forprofessional development is having apositive impact on instruction (Pas-copella, 2004), and children who needadditional assistance are no longer hid-den in the averages (Paige, 2004).

Although positive indicators can beidentified, criticisms of the legisla-tion abound (Rose, 2003; Wood, 2004).NCLB has been accused of being arigid, bureaucratic, underfunded man-date built on a system of punish-ments (National Education Association[NEA], 2005), of having “serious fail-ings” (American Federation of Teach-ers [AFT], 2004a, p. 3), and of beingpremised on a “one-size-fits-all” ap-proach that makes little sense to mosteducators (Zmiewski, 2005, p. A22).Concerns exist over how students’ aca-demic progress is determined (Ortiz,as cited in Chamberlain, 2004) and thelack of capacity of districts to providefor INOI schools (Sack, 2005). Addi-tional issues include the inability tomake state-to-state comparisons (Hoff,2005) and the accusation that NCLB isan unconstitutional violation of a mat-ter reserved to the states (McClusky,2004). In response to these concerns,lawsuits have been filed or threatened(see Archer, 2005; Pontiac v. Spellings,2005; Samuels, 2005), and at least onestate, Utah, has passed laws intended tosupercede NCLB (Keller & Sack, 2005).

As the realities of NCLB havecome to be understood, shock waveshave reverberated throughout the na-tion. School administrators, classroomteachers, and others interested inthe paradigm of thought and policythat drives instruction in our nation’sschools have been stunned by the legis-lation’s requirements and implications,and states and districts are struggling toshoulder the burden that NCLB has im-posed on them (AFT, 2004b; Feldman,2003). And, although current trends inpedagogy encourage authentic, alter-native, performance-based, and mul-

tiple measures of assessment, NCLBis sending the message that students’scores “are not just the bottom line butthe only line” (Cochran-Smith, 2005,p. 102), thereby equating good teach-ing and meaningful learning with testscores alone (Elmore, 2002). This cre-ates a conundrum for teachers—doesa teacher teach to the test, or does ateacher teach in spite of the test?

Social Studies Left Behind: Blessingor Curse?In addition to the concerns over whatNCLB does, there is a major concernabout what it does not. In its implemen-tation model of testing and accountabil-ity, NCLB does not include all of thecore subject areas. Although the legisla-tion specifies history, geography, civicsand government, and economics as coresubjects, it does not include social stud-ies as an area to be tested (Neill &Guisbond, 2005; Pascopella, 2004; Rabb,2004). Spokespersons for the Bush ad-ministration proclaim that nowhere inthe legislation are educators told theyare not to teach social studies (Petrilli,as cited in Manzo, 2005), but indica-tions are that pressures to increase in-structional time for the subjects thatare tested have resulted in a reductionof time spent on subjects that are nottested. Findings published by the Coun-cil for Basic Education (CBE) revealedthat 30% of elementary school princi-pals surveyed said their schools havereduced the amount of time spent onsocial studies instruction, and 50% ofprincipals in schools with large minori-ties reported decreased time for socialstudies instruction (CBE, as cited in“No Child Left Behind?” 2004). Otherstate and national studies are currentlyunder way to further determine the im-pact of NCLB on social studies instruc-tion (Manzo, 2005; Pascopella, 2004).

A statement issued by the AmericanYouth Policy Forum and the Associa-tion for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment (2005) cautions againstthe narrowing of the curriculum thatappears to be resulting from NCLB. Thereport suggests that an unintended out-come of the legislation’s preoccupationwith academic achievement could bean eclipsing of the civic and public mis-sion of American schools. If studentsare taught reading, mathematics, andscience to the exclusion of social stud-ies, students will likely leave schoolunprepared to become informed, re-

sponsible, and engaged citizens of theircommunities. With citizenship educa-tion as the overarching goal, neglect-ing the social studies to increase testscores in other core subjects is thoughtby some to be clearly ludicrous andlikely dangerous. According to JesusGarcia, president of the National Coun-cil for the Social Studies, “Not learningwhat it means to be an American couldhave some dire consequences down theroad” (Garcia, as cited in Pascopella,2005).

Research, as well as anecdotal ev-idence, reveals that what gets testedis what gets taught (Manzo, 2005). Ifsocial studies is not among the selectfew disciplines of study to be tested, itlogically follows that less and less so-cial studies will be taught. Of course,the dilemma that social studies edu-cators must acknowledge is this: Wouldthey really like to have social studies in-cluded in the NCLB-driven test-mania,or should they be pleased that socialstudies remains outside what has beendescribed as “a terror-driven environ-ment, unfriendly for teacher and forchildren” (Hilliard, as cited in Cham-berlain, 2004, p. 98)? With 3 years andcounting of NCLB, reports from the fieldindicate that that instructional time forsocial studies is decreasing, particu-larly at the elementary level; resourcesfor teaching the subject are becomingfewer than for the NCLB-favored sub-jects; and several states (e.g., Illinoisand Maryland) have eliminated statesocial studies tests that were in placeprior to NCLB (Manzo, 2005).

Several questions are on the mindsof many social studies educators today:If social studies was added to the NCLBblueprint for testing and accountabil-ity, would there be benefits, and, ifso, what would they be? If social stud-ies became a test-driven subject in theway that reading and mathematics (andsoon science) have become, would so-cial studies instruction be improved?To find answers to these questions, so-cial studies researchers working in uni-versities in three diverse states (NorthCarolina, Texas, and Mississippi) con-ducted the following study.

Procedures, Instrumentation,and AnalysisFor the purposes of data collection,surveys, focus group interviews, andindividual interviews were conductedwith 34 elementary, middle, and high

14 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

school teachers (18, 6, and 10, re-spectively). The survey protocol, usedwith the elementary teachers, and thefocus group protocol, used with themiddle-level teachers, contained ques-tions that were grouped into clustersthat centered on four primary areas.They were (a) the amount of instruc-tional time devoted to social studies,(b) thoughts regarding the absence ofsocial studies on the standardized testsrequired of their students, and (c) theperceived status of social studies giventhe standardized testing landscape thatdominates schools today. In addition,because the middle school participantstaught in a state where an eighth-gradesocial studies exam was administered,they were asked to discuss the im-pact the exam has had on teaching so-cial studies. The individual interviewprotocol, which was used at the highschool level, included questions thataddressed the participants’ perceivedimpact of NCLB on social studies ed-ucation, impressions of the impact oftheir state’s high school social studiesexam, and assessment practices used intheir classrooms.

The responses generated by eachgroup were examined using an induc-tive analysis (Patton, 1990) model. Pat-ton explains that in inductive anal-ysis, patterns of data can emergefrom analysis in two main avenues:(1) “. . . the analyst can use thecategories developed and articulatedby the people studied to organizepresentation of particular themes”(p. 390) and (2) “the analyst may alsobecome aware of categories or pat-terns for which the people studied didnot have labels or terms. . .” (p. 390).In this vein, the responses were ini-tially analyzed on the basis of the in-formal concepts that bound each groupof questions. The technique of codingwas then used to extrapolate themesthat emerged from the study, and ma-trices and a meta-matrix were used forwithin- and cross-case analyses (Pat-ton, 2002).

ResultsNorth Carolina ElementaryTeachers Respond: Influences of NCLBon Social Studies

As required by NCLB, teachers in NorthCarolina’s public schools are respon-sible for guiding their students to-ward AYP goals as established in thestate’s accountability plan. To docu-

ment the necessary progress toward theAYP targets, schools administer End-of-Grade (EOG) tests. Currently, elemen-tary schools are required to assess stu-dents in reading and mathematics ingrades 3 through 5 and in writing ingrade 4. Currently, no statewide socialstudies assessment is administered atthe elementary, middle, or high schoollevel.

In the initial question posed,“Approximately how many hours a weekdo you teach social studies?” the major-ity of the 17 teachers reported teach-ing social studies on a very limited ba-sis, averaging only 30 minutes a week.When they were questioned regardingthe rationale for the allotment of timeto social studies, the consistent answerindicated that the amount of instruc-tional time for the subject was reducedto spend more time on other subjectsthat were on the EOG tests. The teach-ers were then asked whether they inte-grated social studies with another sub-ject to address content that may not becovered otherwise owing to the reduc-tion in instructional time. The majorityof teachers reported making efforts tomerge social studies into some aspect oftheir reading instruction, mainly duringskills instruction and studies of novels.

In a related question, the partici-pants were asked to estimate the per-centage of the state social studiescurriculum they addressed during theschool year. The responses were scat-tered along a continuum from “verylittle” to “almost 100%” with most re-sponses between 60% and 80% cover-age. Again, the responses pointed to areduction of social studies class timeto make room for tested subjects. Oneteacher offered this assessment: “I findmyself introducing major social studiesconcepts and ideas both very briefly andsuperficially in order to cover the great-est amount of material in the shortestamount of time.”

With regard to the perceived role ofsocial studies education in elementaryschooling, several teachers mentionedits function in developing the abilitiesof students to understand their her-itage and culture. Others noted howsocial studies teaches students how tounderstand cultures beyond their ownand to better understand the role ofthe United States in world affairs. Thegroup also discussed the need for cit-izenship education in the early years.Comments included references to howsocial studies “. . . helps in teaching lifeskills and good character” and how it

fosters “respect for diversity.” Two ad-ditional goals of social studies instruc-tion in the lower grades mentioned bythe group were the acquisition of mapskills and the foundation for social stud-ies instruction in higher grades.

When asked whether they werehappy that the NCLB requirements didnot include an assessment dedicatedto social studies, the responses indi-cated the teachers are pleased that so-cial studies is not currently tested. Thetwo main reasons cited for this senti-ment centered on student and teacherstress levels. With respect to teacherstress, the teachers talked about hav-ing “their plate full” as they “try to reachall kids in math and reading.” Accord-ing to one teacher, “During the last twomonths of school, the whole buildingis focused on the tests. All conversa-tions are about the tests. Everyone ison edge—the children, teachers, par-ents, principals, counselors, everyone.”

Finally, the teachers were given theopportunity to comment or expressconcern regarding the teaching of so-cial studies and how it has been af-fected by the NCLB legislation and sub-sequent standardized testing require-ments. Two primary issues emergedfrom the comments generated by thisquestion. The teachers expressed frus-tration and concern that instructionaltime for social studies has been dras-tically reduced and a general concernfor how standardized testing appears todrive the curriculum and set the tonefor elementary schools. One responseregarding testing touched on key el-ements involved in the ongoing pub-lic discussion of teacher morale, thechanging role of the classroom teacher,and the escalation of the test prepara-tion and professional development in-dustries that seek to aid schools in theirattempt to meet NCLB mandates. Ac-cording to the teacher,

I truly feel intimidated and depressedabout the increasing importance oftest scores. These tests have aided inthe production of programs createdonly to “meet the goal.” As a result,teachers are finding their jobs moreand more dictated by not only stan-dardized tests but also standardizedprograms. Teacher creativity is be-coming something of the past. I havecome to loathe the word “program”and the implications it brings with it.

The participating teachers ex-pressed frustration that testing andscores have become the goals and thatbecause of the standardized tests, they

Fall 2005 15

cannot teach anything except mathe-matics and reading. A veteran teachernoted, “Students can’t really have funanymore. All they do is EOG test prepbooks. We place too much importanceon the standardized tests.” The teach-ers expressed disappointment that al-though social studies is just as impor-tant as reading and mathematics, be-cause of NCLB, it is now being left out.

Texas Social Studies EducatorsAddress NCLB and State-MandatedTesting

In Texas, the Academic Excellence In-dicator System (AEIS) includes con-tent standards and high-stakes test-ing. The Texas Essential Knowledgeand Skills (TEKS) outlines the state’smandated curriculum, and the TexasAssessment of Knowledge and Skills(TAKS) is the corresponding systemof high-stakes tests. Currently, elemen-tary and middle levels TAKS requiretesting in reading and mathematics ingrades 3 through 8, writing in grades4 and 7, science in grade 5, and socialstudies in grade 8. In April 2005, HouseBill 31 passed out of the Texas Pub-lic Education Committee. This legisla-tion proposed the addition of a socialstudies assessment in the fifth grade.If signed into law, the fifth-grade examwill be administered for the first time inthe 2008–2009 school year. High schoolexams are administered to students inEnglish/language arts, mathematics,science, and social studies. These arehigh-stakes tests, for students in grades3, 5, and 8 must pass designated TAKSto be promoted, and high school stu-dents must pass the TAKS to graduateand receive a diploma.

In Texas, the use of high-stakes teststranslates to a measure of “compe-tence” for all associated with school-ing. Based on standardized test results,publicized ratings of “accountability”are now being used to link student per-formance to teacher, administrator ca-pability, and district adequacy (Black& Valenzuela, 2004; Koretz, 2002). Re-search evidence about high-stakes test-ing in Texas reveals that it exerts in-tense pressure on schools (Black &Valenzuela, 2004; McNeil, 2000). Ad-mittedly, knowledge about high-stakestesting and its impact on social studiesis only emerging. The recent entry of so-cial studies to high-stakes state testingsystems, such as the Texas system, hasprecluded long-term studies. Texas so-cial studies educators have decidedly

conflicted ideas about how NCLB, theTAKS, and their content “get along.”Some are pleased that NCLB “left so-cial studies behind” and they wish theTEKS would as well. Others, however,say the only way social studies willreceive attention, particularly in thelower grades, is if a test focuses atten-tion on it.

The middle-level teachers who par-ticipated in this study indicated thatthere has been an increased focus on so-cial studies in their schools since the in-ception of the eighth-grade TAKS socialstudies exam. Largely, they saw this aspositive, in that efforts were being madeto focus attention on social studies con-tent because this content was now sub-ject to attention because of testing. Themiddle-level teachers surveyed reportthat students in Texas middle schoolsreceive the equivalent of 40 minutes ofsocial studies instruction daily.

Each of the teachers in the focusgroup voiced concern, however, thatstudents arrive in middle school withweak social studies knowledge, atti-tudes, and skills because of the em-phasis in elementary school on readingand mathematics. The following com-ments reflect what teachers reported:(1) “Students come to my class ineighth grade and it seems that they havenever encountered any American his-tory. How can this be, since the TEKSclearly has a historic strand, begin-ning in kindergarten?” and (2) “Eighth-grade teachers should not be expectedto carry the burden of being responsiblefor teaching everything that is going tobe tested, since many of these conceptsare expected to be introduced in theelementary grades—at least accordingto the TEKS.”

When asked whether they supportthe move to add a fifth-grade test to theTEKS, five of the seven teachers statedthat they would support the addition ofa fifth-grade social studies test, whiletwo others expressed reservations. Oneteacher’s voice exemplified their con-cern: “I am not in support of anothertest. My children already are doing toomuch and too much emphasis is placedon the TAKS. It is ridiculous!” Anotherechoed this sentiment with this retort:“The answer to education is NOT moretests!” Thoughtfully, another teacherresponded:

I don’t like the testing system in Texas.However, I have to admit that theschool system determines its targetsand resources according to what istested. Given this kind of history of

the Texas system, I believe studentswill be more prepared at higher levelsif they are tested in fifth grade.

When discussing the difficultiesfaced in teaching middle school socialstudies, the middle school teachers re-sponded in ways significantly differentfrom those of the elementary teach-ers, having less to do with time andmore to do with content. The teach-ers reported that parents and adminis-trators have become more stringent intheir expectations since accountabilityhas become so public. Other teachersreflected on the ways the TAKS hasnarrowed the types of units of studythey now undertake with their stu-dents. This was an especially relevantconcern among eighth-grade teachers,who now have to focus their attentionon aligning instruction with the TAKSobjectives.

Finally, when asked to speak to otherissues surrounding the implementationof NCLB and the TEKS, the middle-levelparticipants explained that the op-portunities afforded students to learnabout social studies are affected by thesocioeconomic status of a school, high-needs populations’ characteristics, andability levels of students in general. Incomments from several teachers, it wasrevealed that teachers feel compelledby administrative constraint in low-performing schools to remain closelyaligned with the TAKS objectives. Con-sequently, the learning experiences ofstudents in these schools are less filledwith opportunities to explore socialstudies concepts in depth and more fo-cused on skills and fact-based objec-tives.

Mississippi Teachers Weigh the Costsand Benefits of NCLB and State Testing

Mississippi’s School Accountability Sys-tem, which includes performance stan-dards and measures of the same, wasin place prior to NCLB, and that sys-tem is now the vehicle for the state’sNCLB-mandated testing program. Testsare administered in grades 2 through8 in reading, language, and mathemat-ics and in grades 4 and 7 in writing.At the high school level, subject areatests are given in English, mathemat-ics, science, and social studies. Begin-ning in 2006–2007, proficiency tests inscience will be added to the elementaryand middle school testing programs.The tests carry high stakes for stu-dents, schools, and districts. Students’performance on the tests in grades 3

16 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

and 7 may be considered as one partof the decision to promote or not, andhigh school students must pass the highschool tests to graduate. School Perfor-mance Classifications are determinedby students’ performance on the tests,and school districts’ accreditation sta-tus is based in part on students’ achieve-ment levels.

When asked how they feel aboutNCLB’s focus on mathematics, reading,and science to the exclusion of socialstudies, 8 of the 10 high school teach-ers surveyed indicated they were con-cerned or very concerned that socialstudies was not included as a core sub-ject to be tested. The majority senti-ment expressed was that not includingsocial studies sends the message thatlearning about social studies is not asvalued as learning about mathematics,reading, and science. One high schoolteacher said, “It is as though they aretelling the teachers that your subject isnot important.” Another teacher added,“Not being included means that we [so-cial studies teachers] are not equalpartners in education.” The group wenton to say that because social studies isnot a NCLB-tested subject, they fearthat students will ultimately devalueit and consider its study to be irrele-vant. One teacher offered, “If studentsperceive social studies is not valued bythe educational system, they will see novalue in it.”

When questioned about potentialrisks or benefits associated with hav-ing social studies left out of NCLB, therespondents overwhelmingly spoke towhat they believe the risks are. Oneconcern discussed by the group was theexpectation that students will receiveminimal social studies instruction inthe lower grades. Several teachers de-scribed recent conversations with ele-mentary teachers in which they weretold that there is currently “little em-phasis” on social studies owing to theattention being placed on reading andmathematics. They reported that so-cial studies is “on the back burner” inthe lower grades, that teaching socialstudies has become an “afterthought,”and that it is taught in by elementaryteachers only “if they have the time.”They said that elementary teachers arefocusing attention on what they areheld accountable for, and they are notheld accountable for social studies. Thegroup strongly felt that this is problem-atic, explaining that students will notexperience foundational lessons in so-

cial studies before moving to the uppergrades.

Another risk identified by the groupwas the potential failure of schools toproduce good citizens. The teacherselaborated on the importance of so-cial studies and its overarching goal ofcitizenship education, and one veteranteacher talked about the “critical im-portance of social development and cit-izenship development.” She suggestedthat with no emphasis placed on socialstudies, students will leave school with-out the requisite skills needed to makemeaningful contributions in a demo-cratic society. Another veteran teacherexpressed his fear that “we will cre-ate a generation of socially and his-torically illiterate young people.” Oth-ers expressed concern that studentswill leave school lacking a basic under-standing of the social studies conceptsand skills that they will need to functioneffectively in today’s world.

When asked to reflect on the im-pact of standardized testing, specifi-cally their state’s high school socialstudies examination, on classroom as-sessment practices, all of the teach-ers reported that standardized test-ing has immense leverage in the class-room. From what is taught, to how it istaught, to how information is tested—standardized testing dictates all. Oneteacher reported that most of her col-leagues believe the only things of valueto be taught are those things that ap-pear on the test. Another teacher saidthat his principal told him, “If it isn’ton the test, don’t teach it.” The groupalso reported that the types of itemson a test have an impact on the skillsthat teachers teach. For example, if atest has open-ended items that requirestudents to write, teaching studentsto write becomes a priority. If a testdoes not have open-ended items, teach-ing writing skills is not as much of apriority.

All the high school teachers who par-ticipated in the study agreed that pres-sures are felt by all involved in high-stakes testing. They said students aretrained to memorize facts and to cramfor tests; consequently, students cometo believe that if it cannot be testedwith a multiple-choice (or other stan-dardized format) test, it is not worthlearning. The teachers said that dis-tricts pressure them to use test prepprograms, to have all tests mirror thestate exam, and to devote large blocksof time to pretesting and testing. In

addition, it was suggested that teach-ers are “held liable for things thatmay be beyond their control,” and theyare told they will “lose their job ifthe scores don’t come up.” The mes-sage communicated is that “good testscores equal good teaching.” Principalswork to “avoid controversy and keepthe parents, the superintendent, andthe state off their backs.” One teacherdescribed it as being more about “pos-terior covering” than “working to moti-vate and encourage students.” Severalagreed the system is creating a gen-eration of testers, not learners. Thegroup maintained that administratorshave come to accept that striving forproficient scores is what education is allabout.

Despite the leverage and pressuresof standardized testing, the high schoolteachers reported that they continue touse varied, multiple, and performance-based assessments in their classrooms.In addition to preparing students forthe state social studies exam, theteachers said they use other meansof assessment in their classrooms, in-cluding writing assignments, enhancedmultiple-choice tests, projects, oral re-ports, group presentations, research ac-tivities, and other nonstandardized as-sessments. Their belief is that althoughstandardized tests may be useful to de-termine students’ knowledge of fact-based information, such tests alonecannot accurately assess students’ un-derstanding of a complex subject suchas social studies.

DiscussionMaking Time for ElementarySocial Studies

Two primary themes emerged from theresponses across the bundles of ques-tions asked of the elementary-level par-ticipants in this study. The respondentsat the kindergarten through sixth-gradelevel expressed concern over the ero-sion of time devoted solely to socialstudies during the school day. They alsoemphatically noted how the culture ofthe elementary school campuses hasshifted from a greenhouse that nurtureslifelong learning and facilitates growthand exploration in a myriad of subjects,including social studies, science, andfine arts, to a sterile environment forpracticing test-taking skills and imple-menting a limited curriculum in hopesof achieving “success” as measured byNCLB.

Fall 2005 17

None of the elementary teacherstried to diminish the importance ofreading and mathematics in their re-sponse, nor did they question the needfor accountability in the school environ-ment. The frustrations expressed stemmore from what the teachers feel chil-dren are missing by cutting social stud-ies out of the curriculum. The responsesciting the perceived role of social stud-ies highlighted the need for studentsto understand their own culture andheritage as well as those beyond theircommunities. In addition, many teach-ers offered remarks that touched onthe loss of citizenship skills, formerlya hallmark of social studies in the ele-mentary grades. Meier (2004) also ex-pressed concern regarding the erosionof citizenship building at the elemen-tary level:

. . . in the growing disconnect betweenschool and community and its impacton children’s intellectual, social, andmoral development. Citizenship re-quires a recognition of what if meansto be a member of something—andwe’ve forgotten that kids today haveprecious little experience being mem-bers of anything beyond their immedi-ate family and their self-chosen peergroup. (p. 68)

To salvage some of the issues andcontent slated for elementary socialstudies, teachers have employed thestrategy of integration, most notablywith reading. Although this process al-lows teachers to double-dip and ad-dress some social studies concepts inthe midst of a reading lesson, the prob-lem is that discussion of social stud-ies concepts is often compromised oreliminated because of time constraints.Hence, the social studies material isnot covered in any depth, and studentsfail to make connections with exist-ing schema and to develop base un-derstandings of concepts needed formiddle and high school social stud-ies classes. Finally, this also sends amessage to students that social studiesconcepts are not valued within the cur-riculum, except to provide a contextfor a reading skills lesson. The pend-ing legal decisions on NCLB will likelybe a factor in determining whether so-cial studies and other excluded subjectswill be viewed as “curriculum stepchil-dren, playing second fiddle to mathe-matics and language arts . . .” (Groce,1998, p. 16) or whether they can returnto a place of importance and meaningwithin the curriculum.

The teachers in the elementarygrades sample expressed their desireto reestablish social studies as a top-tier subject receiving ample instruc-tional time to explore needed skills andconcepts, but not at the expense of an-other test for their students. As muchas they would like to return to hav-ing more time for community helpers,the role of Ellis Island in America’s his-tory, and cultural geography, they wereadamant about not adding to the ten-sion that consumes elementary cam-puses and builds throughout the aca-demic year until the crescendo in latespring when the tests are administeredand sent away for scoring.

Social Studies Caught in the Middle

Unlike elementary teachers in NorthCarolina, middle school teachers inTexas teach under the weight of a state-mandated test in social studies. Twoextremes seem to frame the teaching ofthe subject at that level within the cur-rent boundaries set by federal and staterequirements. On the one hand, middleschool teachers are in agreement thatin the lower grades (K–5), and evenin sixth and seventh grades, where so-cial studies is not tested, a “squeezingout” of the social studies has occurred.They maintain that this is true becauseof the heavy emphasis placed on thecontent areas, specifically reading andmathematics that count for high-stakespurposes. For this reason, most of theteachers held that having social stud-ies left out of NCLB will serve to thedetriment of its study.

On the other hand, in the middleand upper grades where social stud-ies knowledge is tested by the TAKS,the teachers expressed dissatisfactionwith what they perceive to be con-straints placed on its teaching, whichresult in superficial treatment of thesubject. The teachers also expressedfrustration with the amount of timethat is required for test preparationand test-related professional develop-ment. In spite of having more atten-tion focused on the subject at thoselevels because of the high-stakes teststhat are administered, the middle-levelteachers voiced dismay for the lossof opportunities for authentic learn-ing by students in the social studies,which they believe will result in bothshort-term and long-term losses for thestudents.

Because they are bound by policiesand an externally designed role for the

social studies in the school curriculum,it was unclear whether the middle-levelteachers fully recognize the multipleforces that now influence their cur-riculum, instruction, and assessmentchoices. It appeared they are just be-ginning to get a sense of how socialstudies is being experienced in Texasbecause of NCLB and increasing focuson TAKS preparation. The overall im-plications of the federal and state man-dates are just emerging. For example,with the distribution of the TAKS cur-ricula matrices and scope and sequencerequirements at the state level andwithin many school districts in Texas,it may be assumed that social studiesteachers are now aligning classroominstruction with the testing format ofthe TAKS at the secondary level. Nev-ertheless, there is no clear evidence asto whether or not teachers have alle-giance to the testing and accountabilitysystem that is driving their instructionor to what extent they have changedtheir everyday teaching and assessmentpractices in response to NCLB and theTAKS.

In sum, federal and state testing poli-cies and the testing rhetoric are pub-lic boundaries that subsequently por-tray schools as spaces for educationreform. The enactment of the NCLBlegislation is the latest and most far-reaching demonstration of the reason-ing that equates successful schoolingwith institutionalized high-stakes test-ing systems. Nonetheless, the bound-aries surrounding curriculum, instruc-tion, and assessment call for a closerexamination, at least in the contextof the work of Texas teachers whoare teaching under conditions set byNCLB and the Texas Education Agency.At this point, the conversations aboutNCLB and TAKS in Texas are ferventand contentious, with middle-level so-cial studies teachers feeling the heatof public attention along with theircolleagues teaching courses in liter-acy, mathematics, and, more recently,science.

NCLB and State Testing: ADouble-Edged Sword for the SocialStudies

Two opposing trains of thought ap-peared to support the frame of ref-erence from which high school socialstudies teachers in Mississippi cur-rently operate. The first is that hav-ing social studies left out of NCLB isa risky endeavor—risky for the subject

18 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

area, for students, for teachers, and, po-tentially, for society. By having read-ing, mathematics, and science identi-fied as subjects worthy of being testedwhile excluding social studies, thereis a strong sentiment that the cur-rent federal education policy publiclyand overtly trivializes the teaching andlearning of social studies. As a resultof the current mandates, students arereceiving less social studies instructionin the lower grades, and it is thereforelikely they will be ill prepared to excelin upper-level social studies courses.High school social studies teachers findthemselves in the unenviable positionof teaching not only a subject that stu-dents will come to with a lack of ba-sic skills and understanding, but alsoone that, seemingly, the “system” dic-tates that students do not need to learnin the same ways or at the same levelsthey need to learn reading, mathemat-ics, and science.

However, in Mississippi where state-mandated social studies testing hasbeen part of the “system” for 10 years,high school teachers are not con-vinced that having social studies in-cluded in the NCLB formula for ac-countability would be wholly advanta-geous to its teaching and learning. Al-though they agree that if social stud-ies were included in the federal man-dates now at work, its reputation—and theirs—would necessarily be ele-vated, they have concerns about per-ceived unintended consequences thataccompany standardized testing, con-sequences they feel work to the detri-ment of the teaching and learning of themeaningful and enduring lessons thatsocial studies has to offer students.

Although the high school teachersin this study, like the elementary- andmiddle-level participants, would verymuch like social studies to be ele-vated to the same level of importanceas reading, mathematics, and science,they are uncomfortable with testingmandates that ultimately narrow thecurriculum and hinder teachers andstudents from learning subject matterin depth. High school educators areconcerned that NCLB and state sys-tems of accountability regulate teach-ing and learning in restrictive and neg-ative fashion. Therefore, given the cli-mate in which social studies teachersnow teach, the dialogue surroundingthe impact of NCLB, as well as statesystems of testing, may best be de-scribed as schizophrenic. Although the

high school teachers who participatedin this study acknowledged the risksof social studies not being included inthe federal mandates for testing and ac-countability, having experienced first-hand the impact that “dropping the 800pound gorilla of statewide assessmentinto the mix can have” (Brousseau,1999, p. 359), they are not certain thebenefits of being included in NCLBwould outweigh the risks.

ConclusionIn very interesting ways, the findingsof this study contextualize the man-ifestations and implications of NCLBand state testing and accountability sys-tems for the social studies in three U.S.states. As classroom teachers at theelementary, middle, and high schoollevels spoke to the issues and chal-lenges surrounding current federal andstate testing policies in their respec-tive states, their voices echoed similarconcerns. Should social studies educa-tors respond to NCLB as a positive forceand advocate for the inclusion of socialstudies in state assessments, or wouldit be better if NCLB left social studiesbehind? The results of this study indi-cate that although social studies edu-cators are displeased with the exclu-sion of social studies from NCLB, manyare reluctant to call for its inclusion.Although they recognize that certainbenefits would likely accompany its ad-dition, they fear the costs of its incor-poration would outweigh the benefits.

Driven by a common interest in im-proving social studies education, theeducators who participated in thisstudy maintained that although man-dated testing does give greater atten-tion to subject areas that are includedin federal or state accountability sys-tems, testing is not the best means toachieving improvement in teaching andlearning. Enormous conflict was heardin the responses of teachers who par-ticipated in this study. They decried theimpact of standardized testing, yet theyrecognized that attention to the contentthey value in the social studies is notgiven when the subject is not empha-sized in federal or state assessments.In the words of one of the teachers,

I go home at night feeling very dis-gruntled. I feel like I am not doingcredit to the subject I love most, asubject that really is about becominga citizen in this country and this world.Instead, I am spending more and more

time trying to help my students suc-ceed in my class and other classes thatmatter for their promotion. I am com-promised as I try to figure out how tomake this work. While I believe in be-ing accountable, I question that whichmy state has asked me to be account-able to in the guise of “leaving no childbehind.”

To date, the complete story of theways teachers will respond to the on-going enactment of NCLB, as well asstate testing systems, as it is manifestedacross the nation remains to be seen.According to Mizell (2003),

Every day, . . . , educators exercisetheir power in one of three ways: (1)they rise to the challenge of a newpolicy or law, and seize its opportu-nities to improve their practice; (2)they ostensibly accept the new man-date, but change their practice verylittle, if at all; or (3) they resist thenew requirement and contribute to aclimate that makes its effective im-plementation more difficult. (M2)

As the dialogue continues, eyes will beon teachers as they respond to NCLBand their respective states’ systems oftesting and accountability. The ques-tion remains about how social studiesteachers will respond to the federal andstate guidelines, as these issues con-tinue to evolve. Will teachers change,resist, ignore, defy, acquiesce, or suc-cumb to the tumultuous forces of fed-erally and state-mandated systems oftesting and accountability?

References

American Federation of Teachers (2004a).Harvard study cites NCLB imple-mentation flaws. Retrieved March 21,2005, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_teacher/apr04/nclb.html.

American Federation of Teachers (2004b).NCLB Watch. Retrieved March 21,2005, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_teacher/2004/mayjune/nclb.htm.

American Youth Policy Forum & Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment (2005). Restoring the balance be-tween academics and civic engagement inpublic schools. Retrieved March 15, 2005,from http://www.socialstudies.org/discuss/msgReader$670.

Archer, J. (2005, April 13). Connecticutpledges first state legal challenge to NCLBlaw. Education Week, p. 38.

Black, B., & Valenzuela, A. (2004). Edu-cational accountability for English lan-guage learners in Texas: A retreat fromequity. In L. Skrla & J. Scheurich (Eds.),

Fall 2005 19

Educational equity and accountability:Paradigms, policies, and politics (pp. 215–234). Albany: SUNY Press.

Brousseau, B. (1999). Can statewide assess-ments help reform the social studies cur-riculum? Social Education, 63(6), 356–359.

Chamberlain, S. P. (2004). The effects of theNo Child Left Behind Act on diverse learn-ers. Intervention in School and Clinic,40(2), 96–105.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). No Child LeftBehind—3 years and counting. Journal ofTeacher Education, 56(2), 99–103.

Elmore, R. (2002). The testing trap. HarvardMagazine, 105(1), 35.

Feldman, S. (2003). A commentary fromPresident Feldman on the No Child LeftBehind Act. Retrieved March 21, 2004, fromhttp :// www.aft.org/presscenter/sppeches-columns/wws/2003/0503-special.htm.

Groce, E. (1998). Approaching citizenshipthrough a community-based model. Tempo,18(3), 16–17, 33.

Hoff, D. J. (2005, April 13). ECS removes dataon school improvement. Education Week,pp. 28, 37.

Keller, B., & Sack, J. L. (2005, April 27). Union,states wage frontal attack on NCLB. Edu-cation Week, 24(33), pp. 1, 18.

Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use ofachievement tests as measures of educa-tors’ productivity. Journal of Human Re-sources, 37(4), 752–777.

Manzo, K. K. (2005, March 16). Social stud-ies losing out to reading, math. EducationWeek, 24(27), pp. 1, 16–17.

McClusky, N. (2004). A lesson in waste: Where

does all the federal education money go?Washington, DC: CATO Institute.

McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of schoolreform: Educational costs of standardizedtesting. New York: Routledge.

Meier, D. (2004). NCLB and democracy. InD. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many child-ren left behind: How the No Child Left Be-hind Act is damaging our children and ourschools (pp. 66–78). Boston: Beacon Press.

Mizell, H. (2003). Achievement for every stu-dent. Middle Level Learning, 16, M2.

National Education Association. No ChildLeft Behind Act/ESEA. Retrieved March22, 2005, from http://www.nea.org/esea/index.html.

Neill, M., & Guisbond, L. (2005). Excludedchildren, lost learning: The costs of doingbusiness with NCLB. Social Studies and theYoung Learner, 17(4), 31–32.

No child left behind? Think again. (2004,November). NEA Today, 23(3), pp. 26–27.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law107–110. Retrieved March 12, 2005, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

Paige, R. (2004, March 12). Don’t fault the law.USA Today, p. A14.

Pascopella, A. (2004). Glimmers of hope in NoChild. District Administrator, 40(10), 23.Retrieved April 21, 2005, from EBSCO HostResearch Databases.

Pascopella, A. (2005, December). Socialawareness on the back burner. DistrictAdministrator, 40(12), 49–52. RetrievedApril 21, 2005, from EBSCO Host ResearchDatabases.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation

and research methods (2nd ed.). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluationand research methods (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Pontiac v. Spellings (2005). Complaint forDeclarative and Injunctive Relief. Filed inthe United States District Court for East-ern District of Michigan. Retrieved April 22,2005, from https://www.nea.org/lawsuit/images/nclbcomplaint.pdf.

Rabb, T. K. (2004). “No Child” left behind his-torical literacy. Education Digest, 70(2),18–21.

Rose, L. C. (2003). No Child Left Behind:Promise or rhetoric? Phi Delta Kappan,84(5), 338.

Sack, J. L. (2005, March 23). Progress reporton “No Child” law shows hits and misses.Education Week, p. 9.

Samuels, C. A. (2005, February 16). Suit saysNCLB’s demands conflict with those ofIDEA. Education Week, pp. 1, 6.

Spellings, M. (2005). No Child Left Be-hind: Expanding the promise. Guideto President Bush’s FY 2006 EducationAgenda. Retrieved April 12, 2005, fromhttp: // www. ed. gov/ print/ about .overview.budget/budget06/nclb/index.html.

Wood, G. (2004). A view from the field: NCLB’seffects on classrooms and schools. In D.Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children leftbehind: How the No Child Left Behind Actis damaging our children and our schools(pp. 33–50). Boston: Beacon Press.

Zmiewski, B. (2005, March 1). “No Child” questfor high scores leaves good sense behind.USA Today, p. A22.

20 Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice