Heafner 2017

The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Social Studies Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jssr
More social studies?: Examining instructional policies of time

and testing in elementary school
Tina L. Heafner
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Cato College of Education, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o abstract
Article history: Adding instructional time and holding teachers accountable for teaching social studies are
Accepted 24 August 2017 touted as practical, logical steps toward reforming the age-old tradition of margin-
alization. This qualitative case study of an urban elementary school, examines how nine
Keywords: teachers and one administrator enacted district reforms that added 45 min to the
Elementary social studies instructional day and implemented a series of formative and summative assessments.
Marginalization Through classroom observations, interviews, time journals, and official school documents,
Instructional time this article describes underlying perceptions and priorities that were barriers to any
Testing positive impact time or testing might have afforded social studies. Two recommendations
Teacher autonomy
emerge from results: 1) time structures need to provide space for the teaching of and
Educational policy
planning for social studies; and 2) testing can have positive outcomes, but these are
School schedules
limited when assessments structures are hierarchical, misaligned, and poorly commu-
nicated.
Copyright & 2017, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier,
Inc.
Introduction
Social studies has historically suffered marginalization in terms of both instructional time and emphasis in public ele-
mentary schools. Many scholars cite high stakes testing and curriculum standardization as the primary reasons for per-
petually situating social studies on the sidelines (Au, 2007, 2009, 2013; Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Leming, Ellington, & Schug,
2006; Pace, 2007, 2011; Wills, 2007). Researchers interested in re-prioritizing social studies in elementary schools conclude
that additional time in the school day, as well as assessment practices that hold teachers accountable for teaching expected
and appropriate content, are practical and logical steps toward remedying the problem (Author, 2006; Fitchett, Heafner, &
Lambert, 2014b; Author, 2012b; Pittman & Romberg, 2000; VanSledright, 2011; Wills, 2007). To examine the influence of
these recommendations and the subsequent impact on the teaching of social studies in elementary school, this study
describes results from a case study of one school that enacted district policies which mandated both time and testing
reform.
The initiatives were driven by both federal incentives (e.g. competition for Race to the Top funding, pay for performance
plans, and value added data reporting), and economic disincentives (e.g. constricting budgets, a declining economy, and the
need to cut educational expenditures) that shifted the focus from student performance outcomes to teacher effectiveness.
This emphasis on individual teachers’ impact on student achievement produced a culture of pressure and angst, where
teachers believed they were held accountable without support needed to enact change in their classrooms. In the case of the
focus school, 45 min of additional time was added to the school day to streamline buses for budgetary reasons. Additionally,
E-mail address: Tina.Heafner@uncc.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.08.004
0885-985X/Copyright & 2017, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier, Inc.
Please cite this article as: Heafner, T. L. More social studies? Examining instructional policies of time and testing in
elementary school. The Journal of Social Studies Research (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.08.004i
2 T.L. Heafner / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
in the year prior to this study, the district implemented formative and summative testing in all core classes, including social
studies, primarily as a means to measure teacher effectiveness. And finally, to provide sufficient time for all content areas of
instruction, the school administration initiated an integrated model in which social studies instruction was delivered in
conjunction with the language arts curriculum.
Given a strong national trend toward individual teacher performance and accountability (Author, 2014), I sought to
understand how classroom teachers responded to and enacted these new policies in their classrooms. Specifically, I explored
time allocated for social studies and how social studies was taught in light of the addition of 45 min added to the school day
and mandated formative and summative testing in social studies. I situate the findings of this elementary school case study
within the literature based on two outcomes: marginalization and testing, and an extended school day resulting in addi-
tional instructional time.
Marginalization and testing
Tested subjects receive greater instructional time (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Center on Educational Policy, 2007, 2008)
and testing pressures resulting from the subsequent use of student scores for evaluating teacher performance inevitably
influences teacher decision-making (Au, 2007; Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014a, 2014b; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Har-
greaves, 1994). Reprioritization in elementary classrooms results in constricted time allocations for social studies as well as
other non-core subjects (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010, Author, 2012b; Center on Educational Policy, 2007, 2008). Yet, social
studies is touted as essential for promoting humanistic goals necessary for democracy and elementary social studies is
foundational in achieving these goals (Alleman & Brophy, 2001; Barton & Levstik, 2004; Brophy & Alleman, 2008; Van-
Sledright, 2011; Zhao & Hoge, 2005). Despite rhetoric, the elementary social studies landscape is desolate and marked by
marginalization trends, (2010; 2012a, 2012b, Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014b Fitchett & Heafner).
Marginalization research suggests that teachers who work in states where social studies is tested are more likely to teach
it (Au, 2009; Author, 2006; Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014a, 2014b; Gradwell, 2006; Grant, 2003, 2007; Lintner, 2006).
State testing policies are linked with significant time differences for elementary social studies nationally (2010, 2012b,
2012c, Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014b Fitchett & Heafner). However, testing is not always associated with effective
instruction, especially when teacher accountability is juxtaposed with reductions in pedagogical and curricular autonomy
(Au, 2007, 2009; Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014b; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Gerwin & Visone, 2006; Pace, 2011; Rock, et
al., 2006; Wills, 2007; Wills & Sandholtz, 2009).
Indeed, there are dire consequences to the neglect of social studies in the wake of the accountability reforms; however,
social studies educators must ask if they would really be better to have social studies included in the nationally-driven "test-
mania” (Burroughs, Groce, & Webeck, 2005, p.14) or if such inclusion will be "killing the social studies in the process" (Au,
2013, p. 10). Identification of state-level testing differences and associated outcomes affirm these concerns (Author, 2006;
Lintner, 2006). Teachers’ are influenced by the tests they administer, but this influence is most often implicit. The influence
of tests on teaching practices is often exaggerated and policy makers should be cautious to not to overly rely on standar-
dized assessments as a “lever of change” (Grant, 2001, p. 422).
Extended school days
With the support of the U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, as well as ample federal funding, Extended Learning
Time (ELT) has quickly become a go-to solution for improving schools that consistently fail to perform according to
established standards (Silva, 2012). The overall academic benefits of adding instructional time to the school day are
debatable. Schools across the country have encountered complications with ELT programs, such as: the loss of teachers to
schools maintaining a traditional schedule, the need to increase staff and pay teachers more, an upheaval of teachers’
schedules, and have produced far fewer cases of success than anticipated. In summary, “less time may be a cause of poor
performance, but that does not mean that more time is necessarily the cure” (Silva, 2012, p. 1).
Moreover, stakeholders in states where ELT has been implemented hold concerns regarding the ramifications of
increased learning time in the absence of other reforms to ensure quality instruction. Rose and Stein (2011), in examining
the data from schools with mandatory extended time versus those with the voluntary addition of instructional time (i.e.
tutoring and after school programs), concluded that students gain more from voluntary programs and these gains were
particularly higher when additional instructional time occurred during the summer months rather than during the tradi-
tional school year. Conversely, in some cases, academic gains have been associated with lengthening the school day.
Frabman and Kaplan (2005) documented positive learning outcomes of increased time on task, more comprehensive
coverage of the curriculum, additional opportunities for experiential learning, greater ability to differentiate for diverse
abilities, and a closer connection between students and the adults serving them. Extended time provided for longer classes
in the core content areas, extra classes for English and math, more time for professional development, and opportunities for
enrichment (Frabman & Kaplan, 2005). However, these outcomes were not without utilization of community resources,
teaching assistants to ensure that teachers in these schools taught a comparable number of hours to those teaching in
schools with traditional schedules, and additional time for lesson preparation and collaborative planning.
T.L. Heafner / The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3
Method
Exploring the context of elementary social studies in a single school case study, guiding research questions were:
1. To what extent has the addition of time influenced how teachers approach social studies instruction in elementary school?
2. To what extent has the addition of testing influenced how teachers approach social studies instruction in elementary schools?
Setting and participants
Situated in a suburban elementary school in a large, urban district in southeastern United States, this year-long study enrolled 729 students and
employed 34 classroom teachers as well as 28 support staff. In the year prior to this study, almost 90% of students performed at or above the grade level
standards defined by the district. However, in the year of study, the school experienced shifts in student demographics resulting in an increased population
of English learners and students from economically disadvantages households. The transitioning demographics of the school was the primary impetus for
this school's selection for this research study. Serving students from kindergarten to fifth grade, the school's reported student population was approxi-
mately 50% Caucasian, 15% African American, 15% Hispanic, and 15% Asian. Of the total population, 30% were defined as economically disadvantaged. Based
on its recent demographic changes, size, location, and accessibility, this elementary school was purposefully selected to examine how district policies
manifest in a diverse, suburban school.
Six classroom teachers participated in the study. To assure a vertical illustration of instructional priorities from grade to grade, one teacher from each
grade level, kindergarten through fifth, was selected based on professional experience, administrative recommendation, overall willingness to participate
in the study and, in some cases, based upon their content area assignment. Since data collection involved the independent maintenance of time journals,
professionalism and responsibility as perceived by the school principal were also criteria for participant selection. Three school resource teachers were also
enrolled in the study in order to observe content area instruction that might occur when students were receiving specialized instruction outside the
classroom. These paraprofessionals included the special education, English as a second language and academically gifted teachers. Finally, one school
administrator was included in order to gain insights into policy making at the administrative level. Overall, a total of ten educators in the focus school
participated.
Procedure
In order to develop a broad and comprehensive understanding of the way in which classroom teachers interfaced with the additional instructional time
and new administrative policies, I incorporated multiple data sources. Personal interviews served as a rich data source describing teachers’ perspectives
and providing an opportunity to discuss the multitude of complexities that underlie both the prioritization of instructional time and pedagogical
approaches to teaching social studies. Interviews occurred on three separate occasions for the course of one academic year ranging from one-on-one to
whole-group focus group interviews. The progression from individual to group interviews as a purposeful choice to allow for iterative discourse regarding a
common school policy experience. All sessions were digitally recorded while the primary research and graduate assistant simultaneously maintained field
notes. Interviews were subsequently transcribed. Questions were purposefully constructed to be open-ended in hopes that participants could respond both
in-depth and with personal reflection. In addition, each teacher maintained a time journal in which they presented their intended instructional schedule
for the day for one instructional week at three points during the study that spanned the beginning, midpoint and end of the academic year. These data
collection points were staggered by grade level to allow for a broader representation of the school year. Throughout the focus week participants made
notations on any variances from or disruptions to their intended schedule. They also identified any students who were removed from the classroom during
the day for special services. To cross validate teacher-reported data, interviews were scheduled to coincide with the classroom observations in the focal
week.
During this same focal week in each classroom multiple classroom observations were conducted by both researchers to corroborate the teachers’
reports. These sessions lasted anywhere from 30 min to 90 min and occurred at varied intervals throughout the day. Emphasis was placed on scheduling
observations when social studies or integrated social studies/language arts classes were scheduled. Detailed field notes were maintained during all
observations. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of administrative guidance and priorities, two in-depth interviews with the school
administrator were conducted. The school's master calendar, master schedule and district calendar spanning two years provided an additional source for
understanding both past and current administrative expectations as well as adaptations that were instituted in response to district policy changes.
Data analysis
Using a multi-tiered data analysis approach, three cycles of data coding were conducted. Cycle one examined the school's master calendar for the
current and previous year. Using the daily schedule, instructional time allotted for each of the daily activities and content classes was determined. In
addition, recorded time allotted for instructional planning and non-instructional responsibilities, such as carpool and lunch duties, was also noted. To
account for the varied structures in the daily schedule from year to year, results were entered into a Microsoft Excel worksheet programmed to calculate
differences in time allotted for each activity across a five week span. Data were quantified using frequency counts as evidence of trends in instructional
time allocation (Saldana, 2016). This procedure was repeated for each grade level, allowing for vertical comparisons.
In the second tier of the analysis, time journals maintained by participating teachers as well as participant annotations and recorded anecdotal notes
were coded. Planning journals were read and re-read by the primary researcher and a graduate assistant to highlight key ideas and to identify emerging
patterns (Creswell, 2011). Using a three-level iterative coding strategy: open, focused, and axial (Charmaz, 2006), data were analyzed inductively. To
summarize data segments and group summaries into themes pattern coding was employed (Miles et al., 2014). All data coding, theming, and pattern
identification included partnered analysis for the purpose of establishing both dependability and credibility of the research findings. During weekly
meetings the primary researcher and graduate assistant identified commonalities and differences between the journals and created lists of reoccurring
concepts. These procedures were replicated with the audio recordings and interview transcripts.
The third tier consisted of an in-depth analysis of the digitally recorded interviews with the teachers and the administrator. In this cycle, each
participant was treated as a particular case and a within-case analysis was employed (Yin, 2003). This allowed the research team to examine information
related to the nature of the curriculum, the nature of the subject matter, and the outcomes of district changes. Once this stage was completed, an across-
case analysis was performed for all participants to seek patterns that emerged across the various teacher assignments (Creswell, 2011). The research team
created a grid to assist in identifying these overarching patterns (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Researchers coded the data first independently, and later
together, comparing and contrasting themes to improve confidence in study findings. Discussion of emergent themes and exploration of patterns occurred
during weekly meetings spanning one year. The process of cross-validation of data included: overlapping data collection methods, including interviews,
triangulation of data analysis, use of multiple data sources, established data analysis methods, frequent debriefings, member checks, and inclusion of a
wide range of informants (Shenton, 2004).
Results
In examining how additional time and testing influence social studies instruction in elementary school; I summarize study findings and illustrate key
outcomes in Table 1.
Time
In examining the school schedules for two years, I found that in the year prior to the extended school day, social studies and science shared standalone
time in the instructional day schedule. Through interviews I learned that teachers were instructed to rotate between the two subjects, though how they
implemented the rotation was left to their discretion. In the master schedule during the extended school year, science received its own dedicated
instructional time, while social studies became integrated with ELA. This difference in the fundamental structure of the school day made it impossible to
make an accurate comparison between the precise allotted amounts of time for each content area. I was able to draw some generalizations that helped
with the understanding where the school's administration “spent” the additional 45 min of instructional time. Across all grade levels, the extra time was
allocated for stand-alone science time. Moreover, time changes also affected how time was organized for other subjects during the instructional day.
More time for science

Science appeared to be the primary benefactor of the extend school day. Between 55 and 80 min of scheduled, standalone instructional time was
allotted daily to science. When asked about the increase in instructional time for science, participants unilaterally acknowledged that it was symbolic of a
tremendous shift in administrative priorities. Many suggested that the increased focus on science was a direct result of the implementation of a stan-
dardized assessment at the end of 5th grade (required at the state level). One school official supported this assumption by stating,
really, up until recently, social studies and science- there was not a great deal of time placed on those two subjects
because they were not tested…You know, it does come down to testing. We created science lab to assist our students
with the knowledge they would need to get through to fifth grade, so that they would hear these terms (interview,
school administrator).
Furthermore, this administrator explained:
I think we moved to (the integrated model) this year because of (district) summatives (grade-level tests in core
content areas). When we looked at the data that came back, and we saw the scores our questions began with, do they
know how to read it and we didn’t teach the facts of it? Or, did we teach the social studies facts and processes but we
didn’t teach them how to read?
No scheduled standalone social studies time

As previously mentioned, despite the additional 45 min of instructional time, the master schedule contained no allocated time for standalone social
studies. Rather, one portion of the ELA time was intended for integrated literacy and social studies instruction, while another portion was reserved for
direct instruction of the ELA curriculum (see Table 2). All teachers shared similar feelings about the constraints of the schedule and the implications for
Table 1
Alignment of research question focus and key findings.
Focus of research question Findings
Time ▪ More time for science

▪ No scheduled stand-alone social studies time
▪ Greater fatigue for students and teachers
▪ Loss of planning time
Testing ▪ Concerns about social studies
▪ Lack of testing clarity
▪ State-level curriculum changes
▪ Uncertainty about measures of performance
▪ Logistics of testing
Table 2
Weekly scheduled literacy time in minutes by grade level.
Grade Level Integrated literacy ELA direct instruction Total literacy
Kindergarten 600 270 870

First 555 225 780
Second 555 180 735
Third 550 245 795
Fourth 275 175 450
Fifth 550 245 795
social studies, epitomized by the second grade teacher's comments, "I can't change the schedule. Social studies is fit in during that time [scheduled as ELA/
social studies];" all the time acknowledging that, “in practice, it's not.”.
Loss of planning time

One additional implication of the time added to the school day was a proportional decline in the amount of time for instructional planning and design.
In addition to the planning demands of the prior year, teachers were expected to design a 60 min science lesson and an integrated ELA/social studies lesson.
Many participants felt this allocation of time was disproportionate to the demands of the curriculum, and that in some cases there simply was not enough
material to adequately fill the time. One teacher lamented, “an hour of science in first grade every day is killing me." Furthermore, the increased daily
instructional time resulted in proportionally less time for planning. As one teacher stated, “I have more time for science. I definitely have no time to
prepare”.
Other participants reported that their individual planning time was severely curtailed with new administrative responsibilities, such as mandated
meetings to discuss the progress of struggling students, as well as grade level discussions of non-curricular topics (such as field trips and celebrations) that
had been barred from weekly grade level planning. Further compounding this issue was the state-wide adoption of the new Common Core State Standards
that resulted in the loss of several teacher work days to allow for required training related to the new course of study. Anxiety associated with intensifying
demands was noted: “I know I’ve gotten extra (instructional) time, but it just seems like I have more to do in that extra time” (fourth grade teacher).
Greater fatigue
One final outcome to the added time was the introduction of a general sense of fatigue that permeated the entire school community, teachers and
students alike. In particular, this seemed true of the youngest learners who were not accustomed to the long and rigorous nature of the academic school
day. The participating administrator reported:
It's (the lengthened school day) killing my young kids. It's killing them. My kindergarteners cannot do it; they barely
make it through the day. You know, there's no naptime, there's no play time, there's no housekeeping time for kids.
My fear is that we are hurting them more than we are helping. After lunch, we’ve lost them. That's when we have
behavior issues. You know what, they are just plain tired.
Teachers overwhelmingly reported that the lengthened school day had a disproportionate impact on their daily schedule. Many described a continuous
sense inadequate time to prepare for effective and engaging instruction because the demands of the school day. The 4th grade teacher lamented,
I'm tired. I leave home at 6:45 AM. I have kids walking into my classroom as soon as I arrive to school at 7:15 AM. I
don't feel ready or as refreshed when the day starts because I have no set-up time in the morning. Everything is later
in the afternoon, yet the school day's official start and end time (for employees) hasn't changed. I monitor kids until
my day ends with no afternoon planning time. I have no time to breathe.
Teachers questioned the benefit of the extended school day. These views were encapsulated by additional teachers' remarks such as, we “lost one hour
of planning time” (while being required to add more supervised student time) and “mostly I feel that 45 min has affected my planning time”.
Testing
The district mandated the administration of formative and summative testing in all core subject areas (ELA, math, science, and social studies) in all
grades, creating a high stakes environment in which previously neglected subjects could no longer be ignored. Yet, all teachers and the school admin-
istrator conveyed much confusion, frustration, and angst related to the additional testing expectations. These feelings were fueled by questions regarding
the purpose and use of testing, curricular and testing misalignment, and logistical concerns.
Concerns about social studies

Participants in this study acknowledged that the new district testing program in this content area influenced their teaching practices and prioritization
of instructional time. The following quotes describe teachers' views about social studies:
• It used to be that you could do science for a week, you know, until you finished a unit, and then you’d switch it with your social studies. Usually you
wouldn’t do science and social studies on the same day. You wouldn’t do them every day, but now we are. (fourth grade teacher)
• I have this sinking feeling that I am behind because I know that I do not get to do social studies as much as I should, or need to. (second grade teacher)
• What's on that social studies summative is a concern. Is what's on there going to be learned through integrating social studies and literacy? (first grade
teacher)
• Which do you teach? How to you decide when there is not enough time? (third grade teacher)
Lack of testing clarity

In addition, district testing ushered in a host of complications; consequently, defining the time and purpose for social studies remained problematic.
One prevalent theme that emerged through the data was a lack of clarity on the part of all the participants in regards to exactly what content was being
tested and for what purpose. Interviews revealed inconsistencies in the stated objectives of the district assessments. Many of the teachers believed that the
assessments were a combination of pre-and post-test initiatives that would hopefully provide data that could inform their instruction. However, they
complained that the timing of the tests did not coincide with quarterly pacing:
That is what I find most frustrating about it (district testing). We’ve been given no information. Really, I don’t think it
is a pre-test, but maybe it is. It's short if it is pre-test…It's fine if it a pre-test, but kids were so frustrated…It's just
frustrating that nobody shared that information with us. They’re just like, here give this test.
It is important to note that the new social studies testing program was a component of the district's initiative to implement a performance-based salary
structure for classroom teachers, a program that was not widely received by the participating teachers.
State-level curriculum changes

Compounding this issue was the district initiative to make an early transition from the existing state-mandated standard course of study to the
Common Core and Essential Standards to which teachers had very limited prior exposure. Rather than using transitional time to inform and train teachers
in the new curriculum, as recommended by the state, this district chose to begin implementation a year early and only months following the State's
adoption of the new standards. The result was curricular chaos as described by one of the teachers:
It's just frustrating. They’re going to want to start basing my pay on if I’m teaching my children, on if I’m teaching
them the correct thing. I don’t know what the correct thing is. I’ve gone to my administrators and they are not clear on
it. So how can I be teaching them the right thing if I don’t know what they right thing is?
Uncertainty about measures of performance

It should be noted that the district's assessments were designed based on the old state standards and not the newly adopted state standards initiated
early by this district. This absence of clarity was accompanied by a general sense of distrust for the assessments and how the results might be used, as
expressed by another teacher:
My concern is that I have not seen this social studies performance assessment, but I saw the math and the literacy,
they are not age-appropriate assessments for second graders. Maybe the social studies assessment will surprise me,
but they are not age-appropriate. So, even if I am teaching social studies with fidelity and I am doing the right way,
that test may not even measure accurately what my kids know in social studies.
Or, as another teacher added:
I mentioned that I planned to use the data from the assessments to group my students and was actually encouraged
NOT to do that, that we can’t put a lot of clout or weight on those scores. My response to that is, then how can you
evaluate me based on that. If I can’t use them instructionally, how can you use them evaluatively [sic].
Some of the participants expressed anxiety that the results of what they deemed to be inappropriate measures of student progress would be used to
evaluate their value as teachers and ultimately impact their professional growth. From one teacher interview:
I have been told that my evaluations will match my test scores and that I am only as good as my test scores. That is the
clear message (our district) is communicating to teachers these days. Test scores are the bottom line, the only thing
that matters.
Or, as another stated:
My third graders can’t decode the questions to understand what they mean, let alone answer the question about
social studies.
All of the participating teachers expressed concerns over the misalignment of the tests with the material they believed they were to be teaching in their
classrooms. The resulting frustration was expressed by one teacher:
It upsets the kids because it is way over their heads, and the parents get all upset because the kids go home and they
are upset when they see these tests, because it is way too much, it is not written for them.
Even administrators shared this concern:
I had information from all the schools, and across the board it was low…there were one or two standards where there
was zero percentile…I said, how much do we put into this assessment when it's across the board, every school? That
makes me want to say, we taught something that was not tested, or we didn’t teach what they wanted us to.
Logistics of testing
These teachers were overwhelmed by the logistical implications for mass testing in elementary schools. Given practicalities and budgetary constraints,
the onus for administering these tests fell upon classroom teachers. On every occasion, instructional schedules were disrupted to allow for testing, and this
disruption spanned several days and weeks as the testing structure in some cases required that each assessment be administered to students individually.
As one first grade teacher explained,
They just had two days where they pulled in some of the upper grade teachers…and parents came in and took care of
the classrooms for a day; we just planned for them to have some easier stuff. Instead of breaking it apart across
however many days, we just threw out two days. What else can you do?
Furthermore, the new assessments presented additional complications for teachers whose students were frequently pulled from the classroom for
specialized instruction in that they held teachers accountable for ensuring that all students were exposed to the entire standard course of study. One
teacher described this additional pressure:
I think (the test) is why administration is making us make up for missed direct instruction, so they are not missing. I
don’t understand how we are supposed to make that happen without guidance. Having never done it, we don’t know
what it is supposed to look like either.
Regardless of the potential benefits of holding teachers accountable for teaching social studies (Author, 2006; Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014b;
Author, 2012b; Pittman & Romberg, 2000; VanSledright, 2011; Wills, 2007), standardized testing in this content area changed how teachers conceptualized
its instruction. Clearly, in the case of the focal school, it introduced feelings of angst and uncertainty that overshadowed the instructional day. These
feelings were compounded by general confusion, and in some cases, ambivalence related to how social studies was being delivered in the classroom.
Table 3
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice.
Time 1. Time structures need to provide space for the teaching of social studies and collective planning for social studies.
Testing 2. Testing can have positive outcomes, but these are restricted when assessments structures are hierarchical, misaligned, and poorly
communicated.
Discussion
This study responds to a call to: a) overhaul of state and federal policy that constricts classroom schedules and mandates
contrived and unrealistic curricula (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Author, 2012a, 2012b; Fitchett, Heafner, & Lambert, 2014b), and
b) “carefully document the problem, how it plays out in a variety of school settings, and what its consequences are” (Pace,
2007, para. 13). Certainly one limitation of case study research is the inability to definitively generalize results to a larger
population. However, through the rich and informative responses of the teachers who participated in the study, I strive to
convey how centralized mandates from distant policymakers are actually enacted in the classroom and influencing how and
what children learn. Interpretations of study findings are presented as three recommendations for change (see Table 3) that
have the potential to address challenges and concerns that surround the teaching of social studies at the elementary school
level.
Time
Time is the enemy to all who strive to be effective educators. The greatest barriers to quality social studies instruction
perceived by teachers were constricted time schedules and limited planning time. As noted in study results, teachers
struggled with the various curricular demands within existing daily time structures, such as the lack of flexibility of shifting
schedule time from science to social studies, and the fact that social studies was the only subject that did not have stan-
dalone instructional time. Furthermore, teachers were given little opportunity to collectively plan for all areas of the cur-
ricula or to effectively prepare for changes in curriculum standards.
From results, I recommend that planning in all content areas should be prioritized within school schedules and budgets
to allow teachers to investigate and explore state standards as well as experiment with cross-curricular alignment. The
opportunity to plan for the additional 45 min of student instructional time was non-existent in the new school schedule.
Subtracting planning time that was dedicated to mandatory activities, total teacher planning time from the year prior to and
the year of the study was reduced from 255 min to 115 min per week. The numbers for individual planning time were
significantly less due to grade level meetings, intervention planning, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).
Teacher workdays, those days teachers need in order to plan, make copies, call parents, grade student work, create
curriculum resources, and etc., were dramatically reduced by five days to make room for Common Core training days.
Teachers expressed resentment for these trainings, which were added to the school calendar after the start of the school
year, stating that they “added little value”. One of the teachers lamented this loss of time, commenting that, "we used to
have a workday at the end of each grading period and planning days at the beginning of the year." Additionally, the lack of
autonomous planning fueled their frustrations. The workdays that teachers did receive were filled with mandated meetings,
parent-teacher conferences and compulsory professional development. It was not until March 30th that the school system
calendar offered teachers their first protected workday since the start of school. As one teacher noted, "There's less time in
my day, because they took away from my day."
Realistic expectations for teachers' time needs to be more in alignment with expanding job expectations, like the
additional 45 min of instructional time. To continue to absorb more time and to ask more of teachers only intensifies and
confounds teachers work. The outcomes that were observed were less than the quality preparation of instruction I had
hoped for, because of teachers were being asked to achieve impossible tasks. Even the school administrator acknowledged
this. When asked, What is your biggest challenge?, the administrator responded,
I think it has to do with time and planning…. The biggest difficulty I have is working with you (teachers), knowing
that you have a life outside of school and so do I…. It's trying to find all the time for teachers- they’ve got to plan,
they’ve got to write out their plan, they have to study (content and standards), but also, they have to grow as pro-
fessionals, and for me that's what's most important as an administrator. I (need to make that time for you) and the
second part is to provide the resources you need to be successful. I think it is making sure that they feel respected as
professionals, and that they continue to learn their profession, not just coming in each day and opening that book.
Yet, within school structures and district priorities as well as pressures, there was little flexibility to do what was needed.
Testing
As a result of having a social studies test, teachers were more cognizant of finding time to teach social studies. Whereas
before social studies could be ignored, in the study teachers made time for social studies. Teachers carved out standalone
time for social studies to make sure that they taught their students the specific social studies skills and terms that would be
evaluated on the summative assessments. All acknowledged that this time was not equal to the more important tested
subjects in which student scores seemed to matter, but that in comparison to previous years, they made sure to include
some social studies instruction. They suggested allocating some of the science time to teach social studies, as it had been
with the previous year's schedule of alternating subjects. Yet, teachers were afforded no flexibility in pulling from science
time.
Common assessments without purpose or clear curricular alignment send mixed messages. Mandating a test, yet, dis-
missing results does not improve practice. Teachers in this study did not understand the purpose of the assessments nor
were they informed of what was being assessed. Actually, the assessments were designed as a strategy to address teacher
evaluation expectations for Race to the Top funding. High stakes for teachers, and not students, were associated with these
tests. The school administrator and teachers described sentiments from the district that all social studies scores were low
and that was not a concern. The priority as understood by the participants was not the score, but rather how the formative
and summative assessments would be used to evaluate teachers. Moreover, the message that the social studies test was not
as important or equal to ELA, math or science tests was evident. I conclude that testing, at least in the manner employed
within this district, and does not guarantee that curricular priorities change for policy makers or administration. As the first
grade teacher commented, "I don't know why [they emphasize science]. Maybe testing, but we have testing in social studies
too and it's now lumped into literacy." Frustration experienced by teachers and students was evident in administering
formative assessments and the away from teaching and student supervision that this required. The onus of testing rested
solely on teachers. Supports for administering tests should not be overlooked.
I recommend that the purpose, testing design, and testing goals need to be clearly communicated to teachers, parents,
and students if these tests are to promote positive outcomes. Tests should be used to improve student learning, not in a
punitive manner to control teachers. Furthermore, tests need to be designed for appropriate readability, grade-level skills,
and must be of high quality. Tests for which teachers' salaries and jobs depend should be valid, reliable instruments that
align with curriculum. The later point was an articulated source of contention. Teachers were expected in this year to
transition to the CCSS for ELA and math, the new essential standards for social studies and the revised standard course of
study for science. Yet, the assessments for which teachers were evaluated aligned with the old standards that had been
replaced at the state level. While testing was associated with social studies time, not all tests produce positive social studies
learning goals when they are poorly designed, misaligned, lack communication, and are not held to an equitable value to
other tests.
Conclusion
In an educational policy culture that included social studies, I found limited change in the prioritization of social studies.
Given the hierarchy of subjects and tests, a mandated assessment only ensured that teachers would carve out a few sacred
minutes to teach social studies which did not provide adequate time to support the dynamic instructional practices pro-
moted by social studies researchers (Brophy, Alleman, & Knighton, 2009; Hinde, 2009; Levstik & Barton, 2011; VanSledright,
2011; Wineburg, 2001). I observed a false hope for social studies; one in which an extended academic day and accountability
measures fell short of expectations of improving the status of social studies. Overriding factors of the stratification of subject
areas within school time structures, district views about the meaning of test scores, the intensification of teachers' time, and
grade level literacy priorities limited the positive outcomes that might have been afforded. As the school's administrator
wisely summarized, "you know it does come down to testing." The mindset of testing as a way to reform education has its
limitations, (2014aFitchett, Heafner, & Lambert). As I found, not all tests are equally associated with instructional priorities
and time. How policy makers and administrators articulate the importance of tests and merit of all subjects matters.
Initiatives such as Race to the Top, gauge the success of America's schools based on the value that teachers add and target
student growth as an evaluation of teacher impact. Common Core State Standards provide yet another external mandate
that inevitably leads to “greater standardization" (p. 6), restrictive teaching environments, and more testing (Au, 2013).
While the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social studies Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers,
2013) offer promise for pedagogical change, these too may produce similar results (Au, 2013). For teachers in elementary
schools, this intensification, no matter the form, creates an instructional-decision-making dilemma—what will ensure suc-
cessful student outcomes? This is a distinctly different question from—what will facilitate student learning of social studies? and
one that perpetuates a narrow curricular mindset and restricted learning opportunities.
References
Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (2001). Powerful units on food, clothing, and shelter, 1. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Au, W. (2013). Coring social studies within corporate education reform: The Common Core State Standards, social justice, and the politics of knowledge in
U.S. schools. Critical Education, 4(5), 1–16.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
Au, W. (2009). High-stakes testing and curriculum control: A qualitative metasynthesis. In D. J. Flinders, & S. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum reader (pp.
286–302). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fitchett, P. G., & Heafner, T. L. (2010). A National Perspective on the Effects of High-Stakes Testing and Standardization on Elementary Social Studies
Marginalization. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(1), 114-130.
Author. (2012a). National trends in elementary instruction: Exploring the role of social studies curricula. The Social Studies, 103, 67–72.
Author. (2012b). Tipping the scales: National trends of declining instructional time in elementary schools. Journal of Social Studies Research, 36(2), 190–215.
Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. (2014a). Assessment, autonomy, and elementary social studies time. Teachers College Record, 116(10), 1-34.
Fitchett, P. G., Heafner, T. L., & Lambert, R. (2014b). Examining social studies marginalization: A multilevel analysis. Educational Policy, 28(1), 40-68.
Author. (2006). One state closer to a national crises: A report on elementary social studies in North Carolina schools. Theory and Research in Social Education,
34(4), 455–483.
Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2008). Early elementary social studies. In L. S. Levstik, & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 33–
49). New York: New York: Routledge.
Brophy, J., Alleman, J., & Knighton, B. (2009). Inside the social studies classroom. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burroughs, S., Groce, E., & Webeck, M. L. (2005). Social studies education in the age of testing and accountability. Educational Measurement: Issue and
Practice, 13–20.
Center on Educational Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.
Center on Educational Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Centor on
Educational Policy.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: State guidance for enhancing
the rigor of K-12 civics, economic, geography, and history. Washington, D.C: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education,
42(6), 512–535.
Frabman, D., & Kaplan, C. (2005). Time for a change: The promise of extended-time schools for promoting student achievement. Boston: Massachusetts 2020.
Gerwin, D., & Visone, F. (2006). The freedom to teach: Contrasting teaching in elective and state-tested courses. Theory Research in Social Education, 34(2),
259–282.
Gradwell, J. M. (2006). Teaching in spite of rather than because of, the test. In S. G. Grant (Ed.), Measuring history: Cases of state-level testing across states (pp.
157–176). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Grant, S. G. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing in New York state on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record,
103(3), 398–426.
Grant, S. G. (2003). History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S. high school classrooms. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grant, S. G. (2007). High-stakes testing: How are social studies teachers responding? Social Education, 71(5), 358–361.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hinde, E. (2009). Ready-to-teach: Fractured social studies or integrated thinkers, the end result of curriculum integration. Social Studies Research Practice, 4
(3), 118–127.
Leming, J. S., Ellington, L., & Schug, M. (2006). Social studies in our nation's elementary and middle schools. Hartford, CT: The Center of Survey Research and
Analysis.
Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2011). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lintner, T. (2006). Social studies (still) on the backburner: Perceptions and practices of K-5 social studies instruction. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(1),
3–8.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pace, J. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social
Studies Research and Practice, 3(1), 24–40.
Pace, J. L. (2011). The complex and unequal impact of high stakes accountability on untested social studies. Theory and Practice in Social Education, 39(1),
32–60.
Pittman, A., & Romberg, T. (2000). Teachers' use of time in a period of change. In P. Gándara (Ed.), The dimensions of time and the challenge of school reform
(pp. 135–151). Albany, NY: SUNY press.
Rock, T. C., Heafner, T. L., Oldendorf, S. B., Passe, J., O'Connor, K., Good, A. J., & Byrd, S. P. (2006). One state closer to a national crises: A report on elementary
social studies in North Carolina schools. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34(4), 455-483.
Rose, B., & Stein, M. (2011). ChoosingExamining elementary social studies more school: Extended time policies and student achievement across seasons in charter
and traditional public schools. Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.
Silva, E. (2012). Off the clock: What more time can (and can’t) do for school turnarounds. Washington, D.C: Education Sector.
VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wills, J. S. (2007). Putting the squeeze on social studies: Managing teaching dilemmas in subject areas excluded from state testing. Teachers College Record,
109, 1980–2046.
Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111,
1065–1114.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research methods: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhao, Y., & Hoge, J. D. (2005). What elementary students and teachers say about social studies. The Social Studies, 96, 216–221.

Heafner 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heafner 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Social Studies Research ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Social Studies Research

More social studies?: Examining instructional policies of time

E-mail address: Tina.Heafner@uncc.edu

Marginalization and testing

Extended school days

Setting and participants

More time for science

No scheduled standalone social studies time

Focus of research question Findings

Time ▪ More time for science

Grade Level Integrated literacy ELA direct instruction Total literacy

Kindergarten 600 270 870

Loss of planning time

Concerns about social studies

Lack of testing clarity

State-level curriculum changes

Uncertainty about measures of performance

You might also like