Unit I

THE ELEMENTARY SOCIAL

STUDIES CURRICULUM
Introduction
Have you ever noticed the rapid changes around you? It might probably be in aggregate
forms such as technological breakthroughs, institutional reformation, process modification or
even in vital details of everyday experiences for instance, an abrupt decision made by one of
your family members of living overseas or even by you shifting college courses due to some
circumstances, These things could indeed be overwhelming. How do you then deal with these
experiences?

As a future Social Studies educator, it is a must for you to thoroughly understand how
institutional changes affect the minute details of individual lives.

This is vital as you effectively educate learners the dynamism of social interactions, an essential
nomenclature in Social Studies curriculum.

Think
As societies around the world struggle to keep pace with the progress of technology and
globalization, increasing individualization and diversity, expanding economic and cultural
uniformity, degradation of ecosystem services, and greater Vulnerability and exposure to
natural and technological hazards (UNESCO, 2017), education as a mechanism of support
should likewise evolve if it is to sustain it relevance.

The K to 12 Basic Education Program implemented in 2012 is a response to the

aforementioned global trends through the passage of Republic Act 10533 or the Enhanced Basic
Education Act of 2013. It expands and improves the delivery of basic education by producing
Filipino learners who are equipped with the necessary skills and competence, and are at par
with their international counterparts. The law clearly stipulated this in Section Il which states
that:

..every graduate of basic education shall be an empowered individual who has learned,
through a program that is rooted on sound educational principles and geared towards
excellence, the foundations for learning throughout life, the competence to engage in work and
be productive, the ability to coexist in fruitful harmony with local and global Communities, the
capability to engage in autonomous, creative, and critical thinking, and the capacity and
willingness to transform others and one's self. (Section I| par:2)

In order to actualize this, the State shall:

(a) Give every student an opportunity to receive quality education that is globally
competitive based on a pedagogically sound curriculum that is at par with international
standards;

(b) Broaden the goals of high school education for college preparation, vocational and
technical career opportunities as well as creative arts, sports and entrepreneurial employment
in a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized environment; and

(c) Make education learner-oriented and responsive to the needs, cognitive and cultural
capacity, the circumstances and diversity of learners, schools and communities through the
appropriate languages of teaching and learning, including mother tongue as a learning
resource. (Section I)

As gleaned from the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum Framework below, every

learner who completes the K to12 basic education program will have been nurtured and
developed to become a Filipino with 21st century skills. This objective is founded on the
recognition of the nature, contexts, and needs of learners. The graduates of the K to 12
Program will have the necessary physical, cognitive, socio-emotional, and moral preparation so
they can determine their own purposes for learning in consideration of present and emerging
needs of their immediate, local, national, and global communities.
Figure 1. K to 12 basic education framework clear images

Vital in this educational reform is a clear articulation of curricular content relative to the
promise of developing Filipinos with the "ability to coexist in fruitful harmony with local and
global communities." Thus, Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies) as a learning area/program is an
essential component of the Philippine K to 12 Curriculum.

Social Studies: Meanings, Concepts, and Purpose

Social studies is an integrative learning program intended to develop civic competence

among students. Civic competence is defined as the ability to engage effectively with others in
the public domain, and to display solidarity and interest in solving problems affecting the local
and wider community. This involves critical and creative reflection and constructive
participation in community activities as well as decision-making at all levels, from local to
national and even in international arena. It includes demonstrating a sense of responsibility, as
well as showing understanding
 of and respect for the shared values that are necessary to ensure community cohesion, such as
respect for democratic principles (European Parliament and of the Council, 2006).

The National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) defines social studies as:

"the integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic
competence. It provides coordinated, systematic study drawing upon such disciplines as
anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, law, philosophy, political science,
psychology, religion, and sociology, as well as appropriate content from the humanities,
mathematics, and natural sciences. The primary purpose of social studies is to help young
people make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally
diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world."

Though civic competence is not exclusive in this field, it is more central to social studies
than any other subject area in the schools. The NCSS has long advocated civic competence as
the primary goal of social studies. It recognized the significance of developing among learners
the ideals and values of a democratic republic.

Literally, Social Studies is composed of two words, social and studies. According to
Arthur Dunn as articulated by David Saxe,

"..the purpose of social studies was in the term's meaning as a verb-as in, good citizenship-not
in its meaning as a noun-as in, studying the content of particular social science or history
subjects." Meaning, social studies was conceived as something one does-studying or examining
social science topics which include civic competence, history, governance, society, and culture,
among other things.

As one of the learning areas in the Philippine K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum, Araling
Panlipunan (Social Studies) intends to develop among learners critical understanding on
historical, geographical, socio-political, and economic issues of the Philippines, taking into
account the international and global contexts, allowing them to become productive citizens of
the country and of the world. It likewise seeks to engender among Filipino learners historical
mindedness, critical thinking, civic competence, cultural tolerance, and respect for diversity.
This contributes to the overarching intention of the K to 12 Program, which is to develop a
holistic citizen with 21st century skills.
Figure 2. Araling Panlipunan Framework.

Primarily, K to 12 Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies) intends to develop critical,

reflective, responsible, productive, nature-loving, nationalist, and humane citizens rooted in
his/her identity as Filipino yet manifests the values and skills of a global citizen.

The said overarching goal is expected to be achieved by employing sound learning

theories, which include constructivism (which will be further discussed in the subsequent
lessons) collaborative learning, experiential, and. Contextual learning. Alongside this is the use
of relevant approach and strategies such as thematic-chronological and conceptual approach,
discovery approach, integrative, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary approach.
 Moreover, the disciplinal skills in social studies such as critical thinking, creativity, sound
decision-making, investigative and research skills, and historical thinking are likewise developed
using an expanding approach.

Conceptualizing Social Studies: A Brief History of Social Studies in

School Curricula

It is essential to examine as early as now how social studies as a subject evolved.

Subsequent paragraphs were heavily borrowed from the paper written by David Warren Saxe
titled Framing a Theory for Social Studies Foundations published in 1992.

Though it's almost three decades old, it provides valuable insights on how social studies as a
learning area/subject emerged.

The author argued that many social studies educators, practitioners, and specialists
have little knowledge or background on the identity of social studies. Thus, they fell short in the
delivery of a comprehensive and relevant social studies curriculum. He explicitly stated this
when he said that,
 "I argue that practitioners and theorists are prevented from articulating viable
perceptions of social studies' purpose, theory, and practice because they lack basic
understandings of the original historical underpinnings of social studies."

This "scarcity of theoretical" foundations can be rooted in the myths (as ie used by Saxe)
on the origin of social studies which widely spread among educators a and practitioners. He
clearly pointed this out when he said that,

"Where teachers, administrators, and even social studies theorists continued the litany
and rituals of the field, there was little understanding of its original purpose and even less
understanding of a continuing dialogue for examining collective aims. Simply put, social studies
became entrenched in schools as a tradition of habit. With its original experimental nature
detached from practice, it is little wonder that educational leaders since the 1940s have either
given up on social studies or- perhaps more simply, in not understanding the purpose for social
studies-decided to try something else. A case in point is the much publicized America 2000 (U.S.
Dept. of Education, 1991), which has dropped social studies as a core curricular area in favor of
an undefined application of history and geography, as if social studies has nothing to do with
history and geography."

As Saxe suggested, one of the reasons behind the absence of historical information on
social studies might be rooted in the dearth of resources. Upon reviewing well-regarded
educational histories by Cremin (1961, 1988), Meyer (1957), Spring (1990), Welter (1962),
Karier (1986), Krug (1964), Tyack and Hansot (1982), Tanner and Tanner (1990), Peterson
(1985), Ravitch (1983), and Kliebard (1986), he argued that only Krug and Kliebard treated
seriously the beginnings of social studies. He explained that,

"Krug (1964) presents a fair accounting of the role of the 1916 Committee on the Social
Studies of the National Education Association as the first major organization to advocate social
studies, but he presents little of the actions or thinking that precipitated the Committee's work.
Kliebard (1986) briefly mentions the 1916 Committee on the Social Studies."

Myths on the Origin of Social Studies

Based on the literature survey conducted by Saxe, he was able to identify three myths
surrounding the emergence of social studies. These include Continuous Existence Theory, Big
Bang Theory of 1916, and History Foundation Theory.

Continuous Spontaneous Existence (CSE) Theory

According to this theory, social studies exists without any antecedents. It holds the idea that
social studies past is not relevant. Various writers and scholars did not include a comprehensive
study on how social studies became part of the subjects being taught in basic education. For
many, the subject arose simultaneously with other learning prográms/areas.

As Saxe summarized,

"In brief, although these texts focus on the teaching of social studies, the 18 texts did
not offer any explanation as to why or how social studies came to be part of school curricula
(see Armstrong, 1980; Banks, 1990; Chapin & Messick, 1989; Dobkin, Fisher, Ludwig &
Koblinger, 1985; Ellis, 1991; Evans & Brueckner, 1990; Fraenkel, 1985; Hennings, Hennings, &
Banich, 1989; Jarolimek, 1990; Kaltsounis, 1987; Michaelis, 1988; Michaelis & Rushdoony, 1987;
Naylor & Diem, 1987; Savage & Armstrong, 1992; Schuncke, 1988; Van Cleaf, 1991; Welton &
Mallan, 1987; Zevin, 1992). For whatever reasons, the authors decided to ignore the notion of
origins or historical orientation altogether. To the presentist authorsusing an inventive
ahistorical mentality-each preservice social studies teacher is charged to activate social studies
in his or her own image without historical antecedents to bother with or ponder."

• Big Bang Theory of 1916

As the title suggests, this is centered on the idea that social studies suddenly appeared
in the year 1916, thanks to the Committee on the Social Studies under the sponsorship of the
National Education Association (NEA; Dunn, 1916). There are literature that espoused this idea.
One of the classic examples of this theory is found in the International Journal of Social
Education in a special issue titled "Social Studies as a Discipline." As Saxe emphatically puts it,

"In this issue, one writer confidently asserts that social studies 'was born in 1916'
(Larrabee, 1991, p. 51). In true big bang form, this writer cites a secondary source as proof
positive of the 1916 assertion. When the secondary source (Atwood, 1982) is checked,
however, more errors are found. In a special issue of Journal of Thought, ironically devoted to
social studies foundations, Editor Virginia Atwood claims, With Earle Rugg serving as midwife,
social studies was 'born' in 1916 (1982, p. 😎. Not only did Atwood use the big bang date of
1916 but she also erroneously cited Earle Rugg as the originator of the field. Earle Rugg was not
connected to the 1916 social studies report in any fashion. However, he and his brother Harold
Rugg later did agitate for and help organize the National Council for the Social Studies in 1921
('National Council')"

But if there's one research work that influenced educators and other scholars to take
this view, it's Lybarger's historiography of social studies in the Handbook of Research on Social
Studies Teaching and Learning that could be considered as thenmain culprit. It is here that
Lybarger highlights 1916 as a birth date of the social studies.

As Saxe puts it,

"More than any other contemporary researcher, ironically, it is Lybarger t has added
depth to the pre-1916 history of social studies. For instance, Lybarger's 1981 dissertation has
been a landmark for historical research in social studies foundat ations. Arguably, most, if not
all, of the springboards for investigating the early years of social studies can be found within
this dissertation. Despite this early promise, for whatever reason, the origins of social 'studies
were badly muddled in the Handbook chapter" (Shaver, 1991).

• History Foundation Theory

The history foundation theory is an extension or deeper interpretation of the big bang
theory. Here, conventional wisdom holds that, since history education existed before 1916,
obviously history was the seedbed or promulgator of social studies. There are many scholars
who believed in this idea like Oliver Keels (1988), Alberta Dougan (1988), Hazel Hertzberg
(1981, 1989), Rolla Tryon (1935), Edgar Bruce Wesley (1937), N. Ray Hiner (1972,1973), James
Barth (Barr et al., 1977), and Samuel Shermis (Barr et al., 1977).

Among these intellectuals, it was Keels who "captures the essence of the history
foundation origin of social studies by connecting the domination of historians and history
curricula pre-1916 to the production of the 1916 social studies report. Hertzberg (1981), too,
reaches a similar conclusion by highlighting connections between the 1916 social studies report
and earlier reports issued between 1893 and 1911 by various history organizations."

Demystifying the Myths: Origin of Social Studies Explained

The myths as enumerated in previous pages are considered as such, for these could not
provide data and relevant facts that would substantiate its claim. This brings us to the question,
"What really is the origin of social studies?"

Even before the deliberation of the 1916 Social Studies Committee, the term social
studies was widely used in research literature, and its meaning was common to many. In fact,
data revealed that as early as 1883, the term social studies was already in circulation among
social welfare advocates. Sarah Bolton (1883), Heber Newton (1886), and Lady Wilde (1893)
already used social studies in their book titles. The said books were related to the social welfare
movement that underscored the use ot social science data. It was Carroll D. Wright, the first US
Commissioner of Labor and a member of Allied Social Sciences Association (a member of
American Social Science Association (ASSA), who emphasized the link between Social Science
instruction and good citizenship.

Saxe further explained that, "As social science moved from an area of study to discrete
fields of research in the 1880s, the term social education was introduced as the means to
activate social welfare in public schools. In this context, social education was used as a generic
term for socially centered school curricula."

At the turn of the 20th century, social education was redefined and narrowed to identify
a special area of school curricula to be devoted expressly to social science and citizenship
concerns. This important shift-from the generic and all-encompassing term of social education
for all school curricula to a specific course of social education among other educational
programs-marks a symbolic beginning for social studies in schools.

Edmund James, president of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, was
the first to use social studies as an element of school curricula in 1897. He defined it as a
general term for sociologically-based citizenship education. He then suggested to pull together
the social science for use in the lower schools under the umbrella of "social study."

The social studies conceptualization as argued by Saxe,

"was rooted in the efforts of the American Social Science Association (ASSA) as a means
to further the cause of social improvement (social welfare). The ASSA explicitly chose to apply a
collective social science as the basis of social welfare activities, not the discrete subject matters
of sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, history, or geography. To the social
welfare activists, social science was conceived of as a general area of inquiry drawn from these
discrete subjects to help solve societal problems. This general or holistic approach to treating
social issues and problems surfaced in educational circles, first under the rubric social education
and then, finally, as social studies. What is critical to identify here is that no single methodology
or field of study was to dominate and that every social science (including history and
geography) could be used to facilitate social improvement through citizenship education."

Though there were calls at that time to make this generalist approach be replaced by
specialist approach, public school leaders opted to continue with the notion of a general field
approach toward citizenship education. At the height of this, Clarence D. Kingsley (1913)
launched his Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary School Subjects. He presented his
idea of education reform in a modern social light to the National Education Association in 1910
and was eventually formalized as the Committee on the Articulation of High School and College
(NEA, 1911, 1912). In the first report of this organization, Kingsley suggested six major areas of
study that included.
 • English

 Social Science
 Natural Science

• Physical Training

• Mathematics

• Foreign Language

The Committee title shifted from social science to social studies and thus became
Committee on Social Studies. This committee advocated a program of active participation that
included two major interdisciplinary courses (Community Civics and Problenms of American
Democracy). It rejected the traditional history program as grossly unsuitable and inappropriate
for American students at that period.

The social studies that we have at present is a product of an evolution. The dynamic
transformation of its meaning could be summarized into three things. These include:

• a meaningful integration of history, geography, civics, and the various social sciences
used to promote the learning/practice of civic competence;

• a program that emphasized direct/active student participation; and

 a representation of two interdisciplinary courses, "Community Civics" and "Problems of

American Democracy."

Experience

It is safe to assume that social studies as a learning area/program is always Considered

as the culmination of all academic programs in basic education curriculum.

Interestingly, highly developed countries (e.g, Singapore, South Korea, the USA. and
others) put much premium on history, civics, and culture by placing it at the fore of its
curriculum while continuousiy adjusting the language, mathematic sciences, and technical-
vocational programs in support of the latter.

In the Philippines, however, there is a continuous marginalization of this discipline in the

form of insufficient budget, shorter time allocation, and scarcity of teacher- training
development compared to other programs such as science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) where funding and support like scholarships, international training events,
and the like are numerous.

This is not to mention the dwindling number of pre-service teachers taking up social
studies/science specialization. This is a perennial dilemma of the Department of Education
where a significant number of elementary teachers handling social studies subjects are non-
majors. Consequently, this would impact the quality of instruction delivered to Filipino learners
relative to the achievement of necessary knowledge, skills, and attitude as articulated in the
curriculum standards.

Araling Panlipunan's relegation to the border of instructional priorities poses long-term

fatal effects on the national identity and consciousness. This is evident as historical revisionism,
production and propagation of fake news, rise of authoritarianism, cultural bigotry, and
weakening democratic institutions dominate the current landscape of Philippine politics.