Response to "A Brief History of Social Studies," (Chapter 1 by Diane Ravitch)

After reading the chapter, my position on what social studies should be is no different than before. The reforms of the early 20th century, as noted in the chapter, brought an emphasis on an applied form of study, in complete opposition to the insipid, academic nature of history. While I believe in the importance of the latter to the lives of our students (the academic part, not the dull), the reforms are beneficial to students and ultimately to the society they will be a part of to a greater extent upon their departure from formal education institutions.
Historically, history was first the central subject within the umbrella of social studies. However, the chapter implies that liberals in the field began to belittle the original model of history because it appealed to conservatives or individuals who cared little for societal improvements. “Dull recitations of political events” were replaced with a telling of history that incorporated “political, social, and economic events.”

Today, the status of history is one in which “chronological history” is less and less examined due to a wider focus on “immediate personal and social problems,” or the study of social studies. These would be what the chapter alludes to in the first paragraph: career education, ethnic studies, gender studies, consumer education, environmental studies, peace education, character education and drug education. My question is: what’s wrong with that?

Diane Ravitch seems to argue for the past which, ironically, didn’t offer a variety of views, despite being an element in the classroom she insists is our responsibility to provide. I do believe it to be of great importance that we provide a variety of views in our instruction, however, I don’t think we would be doing our students a favor if were to artificially present a lack of consensus surrounding particular issues. One example would be the issue of climate change.

There is no legitimate “apples to apples” dispute over the existence of climate change, only manufactured confusion spurred by powerful political proponents. This has been proven time and time again through the discovery of financed skepticism via giant corporations like Exxon and more recently by journalists in Texas who challenged Texas Governor Rick Perry and his assertion that many scientists who once believed in climate change had since “switched sides.” The Perry administration “backed up” the claim with a list of names, most of which was made up of meteorologists (not exactly climatologists) and scientists who neither knew they were on the list nor changed their position on the issue.

My point is this: various view points are only as valid as their plausibility backed up by some semblance of evidence, and their worthiness in the classroom relies solely on that test of credibility. History within the social studies umbrella should be a tool to relate to the contemporary concerns of today. Parallels should be drawn, solutions should be deliberated upon and our society as a whole should learn to appreciate history again. That is, however, what SHOULD occur.