Situating the Georgia Performance Standards in the social studies debate: An improvement for social studies classrooms or continuing the whitewash

Journal of Social Studies Research, Spring 2007 by Barbour, Michael, Evans, Mark, Ritter, Jason

Abstract

After approximately two decades of using the Quality Core Curriculum, in 2005 the State of Georgia began the process of implementing the new Georgia Performance Standard. In this article the authors examine the strengths and weaknesses of this new curriculum, along with the proposed model of implementation. In this examination, the authors will attempt to situate both the standards and their implementation within the current political struggle over curriculum in the United States.

Introduction

Georgia, like other states, is required by the Quality Basic Education Act of 1985 to maintain a curriculum that outlines what students are expected to know in each subject and grade. For the past two decades, the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) served to perform this function in Georgia schools. However, the efficacy of the QCC was challenged in 2002 when an audit by Phi Delta Kappa concluded that the QCC "not only lacked depth and could not be covered in a reasonable amount of time; it did not even meet national standards" (Department of Education, 2005a). In an effort to address these shortcomings and improve the general quality of teaching and learning in the public school system in Georgia, the state Department of Education (DOE) has recently revisited and revised their expectations for the curriculum, thereby affecting what students will be responsible for knowing in each subject and grade for the four core content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

The revised curriculum is presented in the form of the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS). The GPS are generally considered an improvement to the old QCC because they go into greater depth than the previous standards. Along with a more informed expectation of what students are expected to know, the GPS also include additional items, such as suggested tasks, samples of student work, and teacher commentary on that work for the teacher to use. In this respect, the DOE feel that the GPS are an improvement over the old curriculum because they provide "clear expectations for assessment, instruction, and student work. [It] defines the level of work that demonstrates achievement of the standards, enabling a teacher to know how good is good enough" (DOE, 2005a).

Of course, it should be noted that the process of developing standards, particularly in the social studies, is and always has been a political issue. Despite the fact that both teaching and the curriculum have remain relatively unchanged throughout the course of the past century, there have been a number of more liberal or "progressive" social studies curriculum ideas that have been proposed, including the textbook series by Harold Rugg, Man and His Changing Society, Jerome Bruner's middle grades curriculum Man: A Course of Study, and, more recently, the National Standards for History (for a more complete discussion, see Symcox, 2002). Not surprisingly, each of these attempts at reform met with only limited and short-term success after actually being introduced into the existing, traditional system of schooling. In thinking about the failure of these types of reform efforts, Symcox (2002) claimed "if we analyze the historical struggle over the curriculum, two competing themes emerge, waxing and waning with the tides of political change. Social control competes with social justice; individual rights compete with collective rights" (p. 11). In this respect, since the auricular choices of a society do essentially tap "into our beliefs about human potential and social responsibility in a democracy, the curriculum has, and always will be, contested terrain" (Symcox, 2002, p. 11). After all, curriculum choices cut to the core of what a society thinks is important for its citizens to know and why.

The new curriculum in Georgia has not been immune to the tension between progressive reform elements and the more traditional school system. The authors' purpose in writing this article is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the new curriculum in the State of Georgia. The authors will attempt to situate these discussions within the current political struggle over curriculum in the United States. Finally the authors will discuss the model of implementation proposed by the DOE to introduce this new curriculum.

Literature Review

As a part of the struggle over standards and curriculum, the debate between conservative and liberal scholars has more often than not been a contentious one. Conservatives, such as Leming and Ellington (2003), blame the current dismal state of social studies education on the predominantly liberal teacher educators who are supposed to be training our future teachers. According to Leming and Ellington (2003), these liberal "theorists have created and promoted a philosophy of social studies education that has proven to be both educationally ineffective and contrary to the values of most Americans" (p. i). These "contrarians" argued that the liberal "theorists' passion for radical social change and their propensity to use the public schools as a tool to do so, is undoubtedly one reason why social studies is in crisis" (pp. i-ii). Of course, these represent powerful accusations. However, the literature indicates that most classroom teachers are still teaching their students about "the grand narrative" of America by utilizing traditional, teacher-centered methods of instruction (e.g., Apple, 2001; Cuban, 1984; Goodlad, 1984; Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969; Loewen, 2005; Shaver, Davis, & Helburn, 1979; Sirotnik, 1983; Symcox, 2002). In this regard, it would seem that the liberals are merely being used as scapegoats by certain conservative scholars to bolster support for their arguments that schools need to return to discipline and traditional knowledge.