The Social Studies

ISSN: 0037-7996 (Print) 2152-405X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtss20

Outliers: Elementary Teachers Who Actually Teach

Social Studies

Derek Anderson

To cite this article: Derek Anderson (2014) Outliers: Elementary Teachers Who Actually Teach
Social Studies, The Social Studies, 105:2, 91-100, DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2013.850055

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2013.850055

Published online: 14 Jan 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 670

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vtss20

Download by: [University of the Philippines Diliman] Date: 10 January 2018, At: 23:42
 The Social Studies (2014) 105, 91–100
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online

DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2013.850055

Outliers: Elementary Teachers Who Actually

Teach Social Studies
DEREK ANDERSON
Northern Michigan University, School of Education, Marquette, Michigan, USA
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018

This mixed methods study identified six elementary teachers, who, despite the widespread marginalization of elementary social
studies, spent considerable time on the subject. These six outliers from a sample of forty-six Michigan elementary teachers were
interviewed, and their teaching was observed to better understand how and why they deviate from the norm. An autonomy-versus-
control continuum is used to frame how teachers decide what, when, and how to teach. Challenging existing literature that suggests
that additional attention to elementary social studies comes from testing pressure or by providing teachers with autonomy, findings
of this study reveal that five of the six teachers taught social studies frequently and extensively because their schedules were externally
controlled to designate specific time for social studies instruction.
Keywords: autonomy, elementary, marginalization, social studies

Introduction elementary teachers who spend considerable time teaching

Normal is a relative construct. What is normal is deter-
mined by what is usual or typical. Normal can change, but
at any particular moment, normal represents behavior that
conforms to the most common behavior for a group. In
today’s elementary classrooms, it is normal for teachers to
spend a substantial amount of time on mathematics and
English language arts (ELA). It is normal for elementary
teachers to give little attention to the teaching of social
studies (Au 2009; Boyle-Baise, Hsu, Johnnson, Serriere,
and Stewart 2008; Burroughs, Groce, and Webeck 2005;
Center on Education Policy 2008; Fitchett and Heafner
2010; Good et al. 2010; Heafner, Lipscomb, and Rock 2006;
Leming, Ellington, and Schug 2006a, 2006b; Lintner 2006;
Rock et al. 2006; VanFossen 2005; Wills 2007).
Contrasting normal, one could use the terms irregular
or uncharacteristic to identify people who behave much
differently from the vast majority. However, it might be
more appropriate to call people who deviate from the
standard, outliers. Though outliers have been a central
component of Gaussian statistics for centuries, popular
reference to the term accelerated following Malcolm Glad-
well’s 2008 best-selling book of the same name. Gladwell
defined outliers as “phenomena that lie outside normal
experience” (http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/). Thus,
Address correspondence to Derek Anderson, Northern Michigan
University, School of Education, 1401 Presque Isle Ave., Mar-
quette, MI 49855, USA. E-mail: dereande@nmu.edu
social studies could be considered outliers.
Objectives/Purpose
The purpose of this study, ultimately, was to investigate
elementary teachers who spend substantial time teaching
social studies. This particular study is an extension of a
previous study I abandoned. During the winter and fall
semesters of 2011, I asked fifty elementary teacher candi-
dates to report on the amount of time their cooperating
teachers spent teaching social studies. As I was collecting
the data, I seemed to be inundated with articles and presen-
tations coalescing around the pronouncement that elemen-
tary social studies was being marginalized, particularly as
a result of NCLB. Surrendering to the conclusion that my
study held little to offer the field, I decided to desert the
data. During a final examination of the results, however, I
noticed that despite the general disregard for social studies,
some of the teachers actually did seem to teach social stud-
ies frequently and extensively. I spotted some outliers. Con-
sequently, I sought to learn about those teachers who spent
considerably more time on social studies instruction, par-
ticularly why and how they were able to spend time on social
studies when most of their peers across the state were not.
Theoretical Framework
Researchers have put forth a number of reasons why
elementary social studies is marginalized. State testing
 92
policy seems to be correlated with time spent on social stud-
ies instruction (Center of Educational Policy 2007, 2008;
Fitchett and Heafner 2010; Fitchett, Heafner, and Lampert
2012; Gradwell 2006; Grant 2003; Lintner 2006). A com-
mon adage suggests: That which gets tested gets taught.
Yet within states, whether they test or not, teachers vary
considerably regarding the time they spend on social stud-
ies (Fitchett et al.; Heafner et al. 2006; Pace 2011; Thieman
et al. 2012). Variation in the time spent on elementary so-
cial studies within a particular state cannot be explained by
testing mandates. A need exists to understand why some ele-
mentary teachers spend considerable time on social studies
compared with their peers in the same state.
Fitchett et al. (2012) noted that “little research has an-
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
alyzed the influence of teacher/school ecology factors and
state policy on how much instructional time is allocated
to social studies” (4). One such factor includes school cul-
ture, which Robbins and Alvy (1995) defined as the “in-
ner realty [that] reflects what organizational members care
about, what they are willing to spend time doing, what and
how they celebrate, and what they talk about” (23). Stud-
ied extensively, school leaders, particular principals, play a
dominant role in shaping school culture (Ackerman, Don-
aldson, and van der Bogert 1996; Deal and Peterson 1998,
1999). Deciding what gets taught, as well as when and how
it gets taught, can be complex, and principals are integral
to this process (Glatthorn and Jailall 2009).
Decisions regarding what to teach, when, and how, can be
made by teachers unilaterally, by the principal, by external
mandates, or by some combination. At one end of this
continuum is complete autonomy, the rights and freedom of
teachers to decide how to use their time. At the other end is
total control or coercion. No teachers are completely free to
choose what, when, and how to teach, nor are any teachers
completely restricted to acting and uttering according to a
prescribed script. Negotiating these two tensions impacts
the extent to which elementary students are taught social
studies.
Any examination of teachers’ actions must acknowledge
the role of power. At the same time ubiquitous and ambigu-
ous, power is central to social interaction, from the micro-
interactional level to societal levels (Roscigno 2011). Power
is by its nature a hierarchical construct, and schools are un-
avoidably bureaucratic organizations, which include “struc-
tures such as hierarchy of authority, division of labor with
specialization, and written rules and policies” (Tschannen-
Moran 2009, 218).
Teachers are influenced by several layers of legitimate
power (French and Raven 1960), including their principals,
district-wide administrators, school boards, and most re-
cently, state legislatures and governors who have passed cur-
riculum mandates. Definitions of power stemming from the
seminal work of Weber (1986) assume that “bureaucratic
formality will inform, prod, and constrain decision-making
and action toward organizationally proscribed ends of cal-
culability and efficiency” (Roscigno 2011, 351). Unless
Anderson
those with legitimate positions of power in our schools
give full decision-making freedom to teachers, then teach-
ers are controlled in some way. Furthermore, teachers are
increasingly beholden to organizational stability, inaction,
and standardization.
In contrast to bureaucratic educational structures are
professional organizations in which trust, empowerment,
and collaboration dominate. Teacher decision making is
essential to the professionalism of teaching, which often
conflicts with standardization. Command and constraint
over the daily duties of teaching leaves teachers dissatisfied
and actually increases intraschool conflict (Ingersoll 1996);
however, many teachers report a longing for greater di-
rection over their teaching practices (Kauffman, Johnson,
Kardos, Liu, and Peske 2002). Curricular expectations are
often interpreted differently by teachers in the same school,
“for some the materials provide helpful guidance, for others
they are oppressive constraints” (Kauffman 2005, 3). The
boundary between control and support is not clear.
For the most part, research suggests that teachers value
autonomy (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, and Pickeral 2009;
Day and Smethem 2009; Evans 2010; Ingersoll and Alsalam
1997; Jackson 1990; Johnson 1990; Lortie 1975; Schwartz
1991), of which an essential function is decision mak-
ing based on expertise (Crocco and Costigan 2007; Evans
2010). When school leaders portray trust in the professional
capacity of their teachers, collaboration will prevail where
teachers will “individually and collectively seek to discover
the most responsible course of action” (Darling-Hammond
1988, 66). Furthermore, teachers who are given more au-
tonomy tend to be more satisfied employees (Koustelios,
Karabatzaki, and Kouisteliou 2004; Pyhältö, Pietarinen,
and Salmela-Aro 2011; Skaalvik Skaalvik 2009).
In contrast to teacher autonomy is curriculum prescrip-
tion, or “expectations or requirements regarding content,
pedagogy, and assessments” (Kauffman 2005, 1). Prescrip-
tion establishes the parameters of teachers’ work, particu-
larly what to teach, how to teach, and how to assess what
was taught. This phenomenon is often referred to as in-
tensification. As curricular and methodological pressures
become intensified, teachers feel less autonomous (Fitchett
et al. 2012).
Research on the threats to teacher autonomy surfaced
in the late 1980s with the standards reforms that fol-
lowed A Nation at Risk (Archbald and Porter 1994). There
are numerous definitions of teacher autonomy including:
“The teachers’ capacity to engage in self-directed teaching”
(Little 1995, 176), “The capacity, freedom, and/or respon-
sibility to make choices concerning one’s own teaching”
(Aoki 2002, 19), and “A right to freedom from control (or
an ability to exercise this right) as well as actual freedom
from control” (Benson 2000, 111). These definitions note
a freedom over and a freedom from outside influences on
their teaching.
Outside influences on what schools should teach and how
their students will be assessed and compared are generally
 Elementary Teachers Who Actually Teach Social Studies
accepted without resistance today. In today’s classrooms,
what is taught (enacted curriculum) or is supposed to be
taught (intended curriculum) is largely determined by state
and national standards. Likewise, how the content is as-
sessed is increasingly becoming externally mandated. Stan-
dardized testing has taken an increasing role in influencing
what teachers do. Au (2007) analyzed forty-nine qualitative
studies on the impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum
and found that thirty-four (69 percent) reported curricular
contraction. Furthermore, in 65 percent (thirty-two) of the
studies, teachers reported that their teaching became more
teacher centered as a result of high-stakes testing. Crocco
and Costigan (2007) interviewed more than 200 New York
teachers who reported that curricular and testing mandates
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
negatively impacted their teaching, particularly their au-
tonomy and ability to form meaningful relationships with
students. Teachers today feel more pressure to cover the
curriculum than at any point in history (Crocco and Costi-
gan 2007).
It is not surprising that the pressure to cover the ele-
mentary social studies curriculum is greater in states that
test social studies at the elementary level. There is little
debate with research asserting that on average, teachers
spend more time on tested subjects than on non-tested
subjects (Fitchett and Heafner 2010; Fitchett et al. 2012;
Thieman et al. 2012; Wills 2007); however, Fitchett et al.
(2012) noted “a reoccurring research theme of ambitious
or maverick social studies practitioners who believe they
have the pedagogical freedom to teach in spite of, not be-
cause of, a mandated test” (20). Despite the lack of research
on maverick social studies teachers at the elementary level,
particularly in grades K–2, Fitchett et al. (2012) suggested
that “a similar pedagogical ideal is possible among grade 3
to 5 teachers” (20).
Thus, for elementary social studies to be taught fre-
quently and extensively, one of four scenarios must occur,
the fourth of which has been absent from the literature
on the subject. One, teachers can be given autonomy over
their time (Archbald and Porter 1994; Morgado and Sousa
2010). Under this scenario, teachers would need to choose
to use their time to teach social studies. In such cases,
teachers tend to be enthusiastic and committed. However,
if these teachers are given autonomy but they choose not
to teach social studies, then their students simply are not
taught those topics (Farber 1991; Ingersoll 2003). In sce-
nario two, a maverick teacher would need to prioritize the
teaching of social studies despite the numerous pressures
to spend her instructional time on other subjects (Gerwin
and Visone 2006; Gradwell 2006; Pace 2011; van Hover
2006; Wills 2007). Under a third scenario, social studies
would be tested at the elementary level, perhaps at multiple
grade levels (Au 2007; Heafner et al. 2006). This mandatory
standardized testing would, in theory, compel teachers give
equal attention to social studies that they do to the other
tested subjects. Finally, in a fourth option, social studies
would be taught frequently and extensively when a school,
93
Table 1. Minutes Spent Teaching Social Studies Per Week.
Grade Teachers Mean SD Median
K 4 12.5 25 0
1st 9 53.3 81.1 0
2nd 7 56.4 84.5 0
3rd 9 57.0 64.6 50.0
4th 8 104.4 97.9 87.5
5th 9 123.9 112.9 100
through either principal directives or collaborative deci-
sion, designates time and resources to the teaching of the
subject. Under this scenario, social studies would be taught
more than normal not because of an individual elementary
teacher’s passion for the subject or due to testing pressures
but because of bureaucratic structures.
Despite research consensus suggesting that social stud-
ies is not being taught frequently or extensively in the
vast majority of elementary classrooms, there are some
exceptions—some outliers. This article seeks to examine
those outliers, to understand why social studies is being
taught frequently and extensively in six different elemen-
tary classrooms.
Methods
On the whole, I used a partially mixed, sequential, domi-
nant status design (Leech and Onwuegbuzie 2008, 2009).
The original phase of the study included basic quantita-
tive descriptive statistics, but to expand the interpretation
of those findings and to enhance significance, I prioritized
qualitative methods. In the initial phase of the study, forty-
six (92 percent) teacher candidates reported on the number
of minutes their cooperating teachers spent teaching so-
cial studies (Table 1). Both the mean and median reveal
that the teachers in this study marginalize social studies;
however, the high standard deviation shows that there is
considerable variation among the teachers at each grade
level. What’s more, a remarkable number of teachers (43
percent) did not teach social studies at all.
To determine the outliers, I simply identified the data
points that looked different from the others. Despite the
number of statistical tests designed to determine outliers
quantitatively, there is no rigid mathematical definition of
an outlier. Determining whether an observation is an out-
lier is ultimately a subjective exercise (Barnett and Lewis
1994). I identified six elementary teachers whose time spent
teaching social studies was close to or exceeded two stan-
dard deviations from the mean for their grade level (Ta-
ble 2). All of the participants work at traditional public
schools in Michigan, a state with standardized tests for so-
cial studies in grades six and nine. The two fourth-grade
teachers work at the same school. All six participants are
white females.
 94
Table 2. Outlier Teachers’ Minutes Spent Teaching Social Studies
per Week.
Teacher Grade Level
A 1
B 2
C 4
D 4
E 5
F 5
Qualitative Data
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
Anderson
ers (Ann, Catherine, and Donna) attributed time on social
studies to directives from their principals and one (Fran-
Years Teaching Minutes on SS
cyne) from upper administration, complete with mandated
materials. Only two of the teachers were empowered by
20 240 their administrators to determine when they would teach
7 225 social studies; one of those two teachers (Beth) described
4 250 how peer pressure to conform to rigid grade-level schedules
28 250 and methods at her school established the extent to which
12 285 she taught social studies. Only one teacher (Elaine) priori-
22 300 tized the teaching of social studies autonomously. Table 3
provides some demographic information on each of the six
outlier teachers, as well as labels characterizing each.
Coverage was a dominant theme, with four teachers ex-
plicitly noting how important they felt it was to get through

I formally interviewed the six teachers, four (Ann, Beth,
Elaine, and Francyne) face-to-face and two (Catherine and
Donna) by phone, each of which lasted approximately
thirty minutes. I spent portions of two days in the class-
rooms of each of the four teachers with whom I conducted
the face-to-face interviews. During those sessions, I ob-
served their social studies lessons, and afterward we dis-
cussed their teaching and social studies in general, at times
for nearly an hour. I was not able to observe two of the
teachers (Catherine and Donna), simply because of travel
limitations; they were located more than 400 miles from me.
Furthermore, to add additional depth of understanding of
each case, I examined sample lesson plans from each of the
six teachers (Stake 1995).
I documented all of the interviews and teaching observa-
tions, and I used constant comparison analysis to examine,
verify, and draw inferences from those transcripts (Glaser
1992; Straus and Corbin 1998). After creating initial codes,
I used focused coding (Charmaz 2006) to array the first
cycle codes into broader conceptual categories. Finally, I
created themes that express the content of each category
(Marshall and Rossman 1999).
Findings
Several themes emerged from the multiple sources of data
from each teacher that I collected and analyzed. While the
six teachers in this study spend substantially more time
teaching social studies than their peers across the state,
the reasons how and why are varied. Three of the teach-
the state-mandated standards. Comments like this one from
Donna were common: “There is just so much to cover. If
we didn’t set aside so much time each day we’d never get
through it all.” It is surprising that only two of the teachers
mentioned Michigan’s standardized test, the MEAP.
Despite the “outliers” label I gave to these teachers
based on how much more time they spent on social stud-
ies than most elementary teachers, only Elaine addressed
the big ideas of social studies and mentioned NCSS and
their themes. Only Elaine fit the model of ambitious social
studies teaching (Fitchett et al. 2012). Beth and Francyne
explicitly stated that they dislike social studies and only
teach as much as they do because they have to. Catherine
and Donna noted that they like social studies, but only
Ann and Elaine demonstrated any sense of passion for the
subject.
In the following section, I briefly describe the six teachers,
particularly why each teaches social studies disproportion-
ally more than her peers across the state.
Ann
The principal at Ann’s school sets the daily schedule, in-
cluding approximately fifty minutes each day for social
studies/citizenship for all three first-grade classrooms. Ann
is a veteran first-grade teacher who feels a sense of obliga-
tion to assist the less-experienced first-grade teachers with
their planning. In her interview, Ann noted that she takes
the lead for most of the social studies planning: “The other
two first-grade teachers aren’t as strong in social studies as
I am, and they are happy to let me do the planning.” Ann’s

Table 3. Outlier Teachers

Grade Level Years Teaching Reason for Time on SS Role

Ann 1st 20 Principal sets schedule Lead Planner

Beth 2nd 7 Pressure from colleagues Unconfident Follower
Catherine 4th 4 Principal sets schedule Begrudging Conformer
Donna 4th 28 Principal sets schedule Conformity Pusher
Elaine 5th 12 Personal choice Autonomous Advocate
Francyne 5th 22 District mandate Indifferent Soldier
 Elementary Teachers Who Actually Teach Social Studies
teaching appears to be predominantly teacher-centered
with frequent use of worksheets and seatwork. During
my observations, her students read from the textbook or
worked on worksheets, which Ann reported is “the best
way to get through it all.” She admitted that she is “old
school” in her teaching but suggested that it’s for the best.
Ann acknowledged the challenge of teaching the state’s
curriculum in its entirety: “There is so much to cover, too
much to cover well, actually. I’ve given us less time on
each unit than we should have, but unless we keep to the
schedule, these kids won’t be ready for second-grade social
studies.”
Beth
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
Admittedly, Beth lacks the knowledge and confidence to
teach social studies effectively on her own. Her subordina-
tion to the other teachers at her grade level was palpable.
She considers herself lucky to teach at relatively large school
with four classes per grade level. One of the two teachers
in this study whose principal did not establish their sched-
ule for social studies time, Beth discussed how she and her
three other second-grade colleagues collaborate on their
schedules and lesson planning: “We all try to do the same
thing at the same time. That way, we’re all consistent, and
all the students get the same opportunities.” During one
of my observations in Beth’s classroom, another second-
grade teacher politely interrupted Beth to hand her copies
she had made of an upcoming assignment. She reported
that she was not particularly fond of social studies, but
the other teachers “carry her.” What’s more, she discussed
how her colleagues and she feel pressure to teach all of the
grade-level content expectations: “We kind of have to help
each other out. There is so much to cover.”
Though the time spent on social studies instruction at
Beth’s school is determined by the teachers at each grade
level collaboratively, Beth revealed another reason why so-
cial studies has been getting increased intention. Like many
Michigan schools, Beth’s school has faced increasing bud-
get cuts, which recently have led to the reduction or elim-
ination of “specials” like music, technology, physical edu-
cation, and art. According to Beth, “When they cut our
specials from two per day to one, we had to fill that time.”
When I asked her why they filled that time with social stud-
ies rather than something else, Beth replied: “That’s a good
question. We were already doing a lot of math and literacy,
so we weren’t going to add to them. I suppose we could
have added that time to science since it doesn’t get much
time either, but a couple of the other teachers are really into
social studies.”
Catherine
Along with Donna,1 Catherine is one of the two fourth-
grade teachers at her small school. Their time allotted to
social studies is determined by the master schedule, which
95
is set by the principal. Both teachers mentioned how spe-
cial education and Title 1 services impact their schedules.
Catherine noted, “Between all the pull-outs and interven-
tions, we don’t have much flexibility.” Like Beth, she also
mentioned the elimination of specials: “We used to teach
social studies a lot less, but when they cut out computers,
they just took that time and added it social studies.”
Catherine welcomed the increased time available to teach
social studies but expressed outright disdain for having to
“be on the same page” as her teaching partner. When I
asked Catherine if she had to teach the same as her part-
ner, she expressed frustration over a school culture that
prioritizes conformity: “Everyone here is real big on keep-
ing things the same. Our principal is good about getting
us common planning time, but it’s expected that we be on
the same page, literally.” When asked about social studies
specifically, Catherine described how she wished she could
teach in a more constructivist manner:
Donna has a strong personality and is a highly respected
teacher, so I tend to succumb to her most of the time. It’s
not that she isn’t a good teacher; it’s just that I wish I could
do things a bit different. I would like to integrate language
arts with social studies and do more projects and stuff.
Donna
A twenty-eight-year veteran, Donna noted how the princi-
pal set the schedule: “Our principal is great, and I’ve worked
for quite a few. She gives adequate time to all subjects and
makes sure we have common planning time each day.”
Though Donna is Catherine’s fourth-grade teaching
partner, one might deduce from my interview that she
teaches at a different school. Donna extolled the colle-
gial relationship she has with Catherine, as well as with
the other teachers at her school. Describing their planning
process, Donna stated: “Catherine and I get along great
and see eye-to-eye on just about everything. It’s great be-
cause we (use) tag-team planning.” Venerating conformity
and consistency, Donna explained that all students at their
school “get the same” at each grade level.
Elaine
Of the six outlier teachers I studied, Elaine is the only one
who I consider to have autonomy. The fifth-grade teachers
at Elaine’s school work in pairs, each teaching two subjects.
Elaine spends nearly an hour on social studies each day,
though some of that time is integrated with language arts,
the other subject she teaches. She noted, “We are always
reading a novel or nonfiction book that connects what we
are studying in social studies.”
At her school, the principal and superintendent require
all teachers show how they are teaching Michigan’s Grade-
level Content Expectations (GLCEs), as she noted: “We
have to list which GLCE we are teaching each day, but
 96
that’s it. We can teach however we’d like, as long as we hit
all the GLCEs throughout the year.” Elaine described how
her time on social studies varies from day to day and week
to week: “I try to hit social studies for at least 45 minutes
per day, but it varies. When something big is happening in
the world, we might spend much more time on it, if I can
find a way to connect it to our GLCEs for fifth grade.”
Elaine’s social studies class was engaging and active. Dur-
ing both of the lessons I observed, her students worked in
teams to analyze primary sources, answer document-based
questions, and present their analyses to other groups. Elaine
is active in her state chapter of NCSS and clearly loves
teaching social studies.
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
Francyne
Similar to Elaine’s school, Francyne noted how she and
her fifth-grade colleague “team” social studies and science:
“My partner loves science, and I have a minor in social
studies, so she takes my students for science, and I teach
her students social studies.” Francyne’s school spends ap-
proximately one hour per day on each of the four primary
subjects, and has for as long as Francyne can remember:
“I’ve been teaching here for over twenty years, and we’ve al-
ways taught social studies and science as much as math and
language arts.” Though she is the social studies teacher for
her team, Francyne gave no indication that she likes teach-
ing social studies. Unlike Ann or Elaine, who are clearly
passionate about social studies, Francyne is a dedicated
but indifferent teacher of social studies.
Francyne’s school district is relatively large, with over
4,000 students K–12, and places great emphasis on cur-
riculum development. Her district employs a curriculum
director and one curriculum coordinator for each subject.
Consequently, teachers are given pacing guides and detailed
resource binders that prescribe what they are expected to
teach and when. Francyne appeared conflicted about the
curriculum prescription. At one point she said, “It’s kind
of nice having everything laid out for us. There is no sense
in reinventing the wheel;” but at another point she said,
“Sometimes it’d be nice to slow down and spend more time
on something that the kids are really into.”
During my observations of Francyne’s teaching, she re-
lied on the curriculum binder exclusively. In one lesson on
the causes of the American Revolution, Francyne presented
a PowerPoint from which students documented key ideas
on a concept map. When a few students, seemingly eager to
learn more about the Boston Tea Party, began asking her
questions, she looked at her binder and answered a couple
superficially and then replied, “I have some books on the
Boston Tea Party, which you can look through later. We
have to move on to other topics now.”
Most of all, Francyne views her teaching as a sense of
duty. Of the six teachers I studied, Francyne is the only one
to mention standardized testing: “[W]e have to get them
ready for the 6th-grade social studies MEAP.” She noted
Anderson
that as a fifth-grade teacher, it was her duty to prepare stu-
dents for the standardized tests that they would be taking
the following fall. During the lessons I observed, Francyne
kept her students engaged, and her classroom had a very
business-like atmosphere.
Discussion
Many current teachers can recall a time when they essen-
tially could teach whatever they wanted, whenever they
wanted. Starting with the Education Summit of 1989,
which was chaired by then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton
and attended by forty-nine governors, and now facing the
near-universal adoption of national standards, which are
erroneously titled, Common Core State Standards, teachers
today accept that they are told what to teach in each subject
in each grade level. None of the teachers in this study raised
opposition to the notion that they are mandated to teach
specific curricula. They simply seem to accept that this is
the way it is.
What has not been clear, however, is why despite clear
curricular mandates, most elementary teachers spend very
little time on social studies instruction, yet some teach-
ers spend considerably more time on the subject. Between-
state variation in time spent teaching social studies can be
explained by testing mandates; however, within-state vari-
ation is less clear. The forty-six elementary teachers in this
study, all from the same state following the same curricu-
lum and testing policies, demonstrated drastically different
amounts of instructional time on social studies.
With the exception of one (Elaine) of the six outlier
teachers who fits the profile of a maverick social studies
practitioner who engaged in ambitious social studies teach-
ing (Fitchett et al. 2012; Grant 2006; van Hover 2006),
the teachers in this study taught social studies significantly
more than their peers across the state because of bureau-
cratic pressures, not because they were given autonomy or
because they were maverick teachers who rebelled against
the status quo. Four of the outlier teachers were influenced
by administrator directives and one by peer influence. In
other words, five of the six outlier teachers who appeared
committed to social studies were not trusted to allocate
their instructional time as they saw fit.
Trust involves a willingness to assume risk by being vul-
nerable to another (Daly 2009). The role of trust in schools
is essential to teacher satisfaction and student achievement
(Bryk and Schneider 2002; Pounder 1998). Four of the six
teachers in this study were not trusted to designate time for
social studies instruction; instead, their administrators set
the direction and policies unilaterally. Another principal
empowered the grade-level teams to create their schedules,
which all teachers were expected to comply with uniformly.
Only one principal entrusted each teacher in his building
to create her own schedule.
 Elementary Teachers Who Actually Teach Social Studies
Most of the outlier teachers in this study were given
explicit direction over what to teach and when. These man-
dates regarding content, pedagogy, and assessments con-
tained an additional layer, however. Five of the teachers in
this study were part of schools that also promoted confor-
mity and compliance over how to teach as well. As Kauff-
man (2005) noted, the line between curriculum prescription
and curriculum constraint can often be blurry. Teachers
are often willing to accept being told what and how they
should teach. Curricular prescription gives teachers clear
and predictable expectations. It is only where curricular
prescription crosses over into unwelcome control that the
curricular mandates are perceived as constraining. None of
the teachers in this study felt constrained by the directive
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
regarding what they were expected to teach and when, but
where the curricular prescription involved how they were
supposed to teach, we begin to see tension.
Teachers are not independent actors. They play roles in
bureaucratic organizations. While Elaine was given com-
plete autonomy over how to teach, Francyne was given
very little freedom; instead, she was provided with scripted
lessons and materials. Elaine fulfilled a professional role,
Francyne, a technician. Decision making is paramount
to professionalism, yet Francyne made few instructional
decisions (Tschannen-Moran 2009). Crocco and Costigan
(2007) asserted that in some schools, “successful teaching
has come to be defined as faithful devotion to the prescribed
coverage of mandated curriculum or dutiful replication of
scripted lessons” (526). Learning to be an effective teacher,
however, requires muddled interaction with curriculum.
Kauffman (2005) cautioned: “[N]ovices who follow a cur-
riculum determined by others without critically examining
it and shaping it according to their unique situation will
not effectively learn to be more discerning consumers and
shapers of curriculum later in their careers” (3).
On the surface, it might appear that the teachers in this
study, except for Francyne, were empowered to wrestle with
curriculum to make professional instructional decisions
about how best to teach the mandated objectives. Certainly,
this was true for Elaine. While the other four teachers were
actively involved in collaboration regarding how to teach
the mandated objectives, a power differential was glaring.
Ann and Donna were admittedly more assertive than their
colleagues during the collaborative process, whereas Beth
and Catherine were both more passive. It is important to
note that both Beth (second year) and Catherine (fourth
year) are early-career, untenured teachers. Though Ann
or Donna did not harbor legitimate titular power, they
were able to use their expert power to assert influence over
their less-experienced colleagues (French and Raven 1960).
Crocco and Costigan (2007) warned that mentor-mentee re-
lationships often promote compliance to the mentors’ pref-
erences. When teachers are not valued actors or given voice
in the decision-making processes over how the curriculum
should be taught, they often learn habits of subservience
(Kauffman 2005).
97
While some research suggests novice teachers desire cur-
ricular and pedagogical guidance over autonomy (Kauff-
man et al. 2002; Winkler 2002), there is concern that teach-
ers who deliver prescribed curriculum in prescribed ways
will lack the discernment and self-efficacy to adapt to
diverse learners and new contexts (Cochran-Smith 2008;
Darling-Hammond 1998; Kauffman 2005). This lack of
confidence might help to explain why the teachers in this
study deferred to what more experienced colleagues or their
principals suggested.
Teacher compliance regarding what and when to teach
is now an accepted loss of autonomy in the profession.
This study suggests that if social studies advocates want
additional time designated for elementary social studies in-
struction, they should look beyond the three widely held
solutions of fostering passionate autonomous social studies
teachers and joining the standardized testing circus along
with the other subjects. A fourth solution exists, and one
that is perhaps simplest of all: school leadership that des-
ignates time for social studies instruction and empowers
teachers to share in the agenda setting and the work of
improving teaching and learning. Effective leaders neither
micromanage nor take a hands-off, laissez-faire approach
(Tschannen-Moran 2009). When principals are participa-
tive, empowering, and trusting, teachers feel less threatened
by external threats such as NCLB (Daly 2009). To stop the
marginalization of social studies, principals could take a
directive approach with the schedule but a participative
or facilitative approach with how the curriculum might be
taught.
For better or worse, principals have unprecedented power
in their schools today. In an effort to qualify for Race to the
Top funds, many states have passes laws increasing the fre-
quency and consequence of teacher evaluations. In Michi-
gan, for example, teachers must be evaluated by the prin-
cipal annually, even if they have tenure. Consequently, this
leads to an increase in principals’ coercive power (French
and Raven 1960). Teachers who do not comply can lose
their jobs. Certainly, this notion sounds harsh and threat-
ening, and predictably, teachers’ response to threats of sanc-
tion or termination is negative (Daly 2009). Nonetheless,
the era of acceptance of mandates is upon us.
Limitations
One obvious limitation of this study involves the accuracy
of the amount time the teachers spent teaching social stud-
ies. Although the student teachers observed for a week
or more, and in many cases participated in a clarifying
conversation with their cooperating teachers, I cannot be
sure the student teachers’ assessments of the social stud-
ies time are accurate. Furthermore, it is possible that some
of the teachers integrated social studies into other sub-
jects, particularly with English language arts. Good et al.
(2010) suggested that cooperating teachers often identified
 98
that they integrated social studies, but their teacher candi-
dates were not able to see integration taking place, leaving
one to wonder if the cooperating teachers actually were
integrating social studies or if the teacher candidates were
incapable of interpreting integration.
Overall, however, Good et al. (2010) found that 75 per-
cent of the cooperating teachers’ self-assessment of time
spent on social studies matched what the teacher candi-
dates observed. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that
the student teachers’ determination of their cooperating
teachers’ time on social studies is largely accurate.
Another limitation questions conclusions that can be
drawn from the non-outliers, the teachers who do not teach
social studies frequently and extensively. While I conclude
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
in this article that the outlier teachers taught social studies
largely because of bureaucratic scheduling mandates, it is
not clear why the other teachers did not teach social studies.
Were those teachers who marginalized social studies given
freedom to teach social studies but they choose not to? Were
their schedules mandated but did not include significant
time allotted for social studies?
Conclusions and Recommendations
For those who are passionate about history, geography,
civics, and economics, the marginalization of social studies
is alarming. Outlier teachers like the six I investigated for
this study provide a sense of hope against the backdrop of
NCLB and Race to the Top. Social studies advocates have
put forth a number of ideas to combat the marginaliza-
tion problem. Some (Anderson 2011; Passe 2006; Thornton
2001; Yon and Passe 1990) have suggested that more em-
phasis on social studies during teacher preparation might
result in more classroom time when those candidates be-
come full-time teachers. Promoting a love of social studies
among teacher candidates goes hand-in-hand with the no-
tion that giving teachers autonomy is the key to increasing
the frequency and extensiveness that social studies is taught
at the elementary level (Fitchett et al. 2012). This recom-
mendation, however, is highly dependent on having teach-
ers who value social studies and thus make it a priority. In
this study, only two of the teachers would qualify as loving
social studies; the other four outlier teachers were driven to
teach social studies by bureaucratic, administrator-driven
mandates.
Another common recommendation to overcome social
studies marginalization stems from the contentious debate
over whether to advocate for standardized testing in social
studies. A number of researchers (Center of Educational
Policy 2007, 2008; Fitchett and Heafner 2010; Fitchett,
Heafner, and Lampert 2012; Gradwell 2006; Grant 2003;
Lintner 2006) have asserted that standardized testing re-
sults in great attention to social studies, but the results of
this study do not support that conclusion. In Michigan,
where all the teachers in this study teach, social studies is
Anderson
tested in sixth grade, yet only one teacher mentioned it.
More importantly, the vast variation in time among the
forty-six teachers studied cannot be explained by testing
pressures because all the teachers faced the same standard-
ized testing schedule.
Thus, we must consider a new option for combating so-
cial studies marginalization: administrator directives. While
many educators bemoan the steady de-professionalization
of teaching from heavy on decision making to that of a
technician (Evans 2010), it is hard to argue with the notion
that teachers have surrendered to mandates over what they
must teach, as well as how their students are assessed. This
study suggests that curricular prescription can be taken one
step further, which would result in a substantial increase
in instructional time devoted to elementary social studies.
Perhaps it is time for social studies leaders to lobby ele-
mentary school principals to mandate teachers’ schedules
to include extensive and frequent time for social studies.
Curricular prescription comes with the known risk of a re-
duction in teacher satisfaction and professional longevity
(Ingersoll 2003); however, the alternative—the widespread
marginalization of social studies—might be worse.
Note
1. During the summer following my data collection,
Donna retired from teaching. Nonetheless, I asked
Catherine to approve my portrayal of her attitude to-
ward and relationship with her former teaching partner,
which she did.
References
Ackerman, Richard, Gordon A. Donaldson, and Rebecca van der
Bogert. Making Sense As a School Leader: Persisting Questions,
Creative Opportunities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Anderson, Derek. “On the Fringes and Vague: Elementary Social Studies
from Multiple Perspectives.” Journal of Studies in Education 1, no.
1 (2011): 1–16.
Aoki, Naoko. “Aspects of Teacher Autonomy: Capacity, Freedom and
Responsibility.” Learner Autonomy 7 (2002): 110–24.
Archbald, Douglas A., and Andrew C. Porter. “Curriculum Control and
Teachers’ Perceptions of Autonomy and Satisfaction.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16, no. 1 (1994): 21–39.
Au, Wayne. “High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative
Analysis.” Educational Researcher 36, no. 5 (2007): 258–67.
. “Social Studies, Social Justice: W(h)ither the Social Studies in
High-Stakes Testing?” Teacher Education Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2009):
43–58.
Barnett, Vic, and Toby Lewis. Outliers in Statistical Data, 3rd ed. Chich-
ester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
Benson, Phil. “Autonomy As a Learners’ and Teachers’ Right.” In
Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, edited by
B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, and T. Lamb, 111–17. London: Longman,
2000.
Boyle-Baise, M., Marilynne Hsu Ming-Chu, Shaun Johnson, Stephanie
Cayot Serriere, and Dorshell Stewart. “Putting Reading First:
 Elementary Teachers Who Actually Teach Social Studies
Teaching Social Studies in Elementary Classrooms.” Theory and
Research in Social Education 36, no. 3 (2008): 233–55.
Burroughs, Susie, Eric Groce, and Mary Lee Webeck. “Social Studies
Education in the Age of Testing and Accountability.” Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice 24, no. 3 (2005): 13–20.
Bryk, Anthony S., and Barbara L. Schneider. Trust in Schools: A Core
Resource for Improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
2002.
Center on Educational Policy. Choices, Changes, Challenges: Curricu-
lum and Instruction in the NCLB Era. Washington, DC: Center on
Educational Policy, 2007.
. Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at
Changes for Specific Subjects, 1–8. Washington, DC: Center on Ed-
ucational Policy, 2008.
Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage, 2006.
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education:
Enduring Questions and Changing Contexts. New York: Routledge,
2008.
Cohen, Jonathon, Libby McCabe, Nicholas M. Michelli, and Terry Pick-
eral. “School Climate: Research, Policy, Practice, and Teacher Edu-
cation.” The Teachers College Record 111, no. 1 (2009): 180–213.
Crocco, Margaret S., and Arthur T. Cositgan. “The Narrowing of Cur-
riculum and Pedagogy in the Age of Accountability.” Urban Educa-
tion 42, no. 6 (2007): 512–35.
Daly, Alan J. “Rigid Response in an Age of Accountability: The Potential
of Leadership and Trust.” Educational Administration Quarterly 45,
no. 2 (2009): 168–216.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. “Teacher Learning That Supports Student
Learning.” In Teaching for Intelligence, edited by Barbara Z. Pres-
seisen, 91–101. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1998.
Day, Christopher, and Lindsey Smethem. “The Effects of Reform: Have
Teachers Really Lost Their Sense of Professionalism?” Journal of
Educational Change 10, no. 2 (2009): 141–57.
Deal, Terrence E., and Kent D. Peterson. “How Leaders Influence the
Culture of Schools.” Educational Leadership 56, no. 1 (1998): 28–30.
. Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Evans, Lorraine. “Professionals or Technicians? Teacher Preparation
Programs and Occupational Understandings.” Teachers and Teach-
ing: Theory and Practice 16, no. 2 (2010): 183–205.
Farber, Barry A. Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American
Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Fitchett, Paul G., and Tina L. Heafner. “A National Perspective on the
Effects of High-Stakes Testing and Standardization on Elementary
Social Studies Marginalization.” Theory & Research in Social Edu-
cation 38, no. 1 (2010): 114–30.
Fitchett, Paul G., Tina L. Heafner, and Richard Lambert. “Exam-
ining Elementary Social Studies Marginalization: A Multilevel
Model.” Educational Policy (2012): 1–29. http://epx.sagepub.com/
content/early/2012/08/09/0895904812453998.full.pdf+html.
French, John P. R., Jr., and Bertram Raven. “The Bases of Social Power.”
In Group Dynamics, edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander,
607–23. New York: Harper and Row, 1960.
Gerwin, David, and Francesco Visone. “The Freedom to Teach: Con-
trasting Teaching in Elective and State-Tested Courses.” Theory &
Research in Social Education 34, no. 2 (2006): 259–82.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little
Brown, 2008.
Glaser, Barney G. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociological Press, 1992.
Glatthorn, Allan A., and Jerry M. S. Jailall. The Principal As Curriculum
Leader: Shaping What Is Taught and Tested. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin, 2009.
Good, Amy J., Tina L. Heafner, Katherine O’Connor, Jeff Passe, Tracy C.
Rock, Scott Waring, and Sandra Byrd. “The De-emphasis on Social
Studies in Elementary Schools: Teacher Candidate Perspective.”
Current Issues in Education 13, no. 4 (2010): 1–22.
99
Gradwell, Jill M. “Teaching in Spite of Rather Than Because of, the Test.”
In Measuring History: Cases of State-Level Testing across States,
edited by Scott G. Grant, 157–76. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, 2006.
Grant, Scott G. History Lessons: Teaching, Learning, and Testing in U.S.
High School Classrooms. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates, 2003.
, ed. Measuring History: Cases of State-Level Testing across the
United States. Greenwich CT: Information Age, 2006.
Heafner, Tina L., George B. Lipscomb, and Tracy C. Rock. “To Test or
Not to Test? The Role of Testing in Elementary Social Studies, A
Collaborative Study Conducted by NCPSSE and SCPSSE.” Social
Studies Research and Practice 1, no. 2 (2006): 145–64.
Ingersoll Richard M. “Teachers’ Decision-Making Power and School
Conflict.” Sociological Quarterly 69 (1996): 159–76.
. Who Controls Teachers’ Work?: Power and Accountability in
America’s Schools. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 2003.
Ingersoll, Richard M., and Nabeel Alsalam. Teacher Professionalization
and Teacher Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis, NCES 97–069.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics, 1997.
Jackson, Phillip W. Life in Classrooms, 2nd ed. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1990.
Johnson, Susan M. Teachers at Work. New York: Basic Books,
1990.
Kauffman, David. The Effects of Curriculum Prescription on Second-
Year Elementary Teachers’ Sense of Support from Language Arts
Curriculum Materials. NGT Working Paper. Cambridge, MA:
Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, 2005. http://www.gse.
harvard.edu/∼ngt.
Kauffman, David, Susan M. Johnson, Susan M. Kardos, Edward Liu,
and Heather G. Peske. “Lost at Sea”: New Teachers’ Experiences
with Curriculum and Assessment.” Teachers College Record 104,
no. 2 (2002): 273–300.
Koustelios, Athanasios, Despina Karabatzaki, and Ioanna Kouisteliou.
“Autonomy and Job Satisfaction for a Sample of Greek Teachers.”
Psychological Reports 95 (2004): 883–86.
Leech, Nancy L., and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. “Qualitative Data Anal-
ysis: A Compendium of Techniques and a Framework for Selection
for School Psychology Research and Beyond.” School Psychology
Quarterly 23 (2008): 587–604.
. “A Typology of Mixed Methods Research.” Quality & Quantity
43 (2009): 265–75.
Leming, James S., Lucien Ellington, and Mark Schug. Social Studies in
Our Nation’s Elementary and Middle Schools. Hartford, CT: The
Center of Survey Research and Analysis, 2006a.
. “The State of Social Studies: A National Random Survey of
Elementary and Middle Social Studies Teachers.” Social Education
70, no. 5 (2006b): 322–27.
Lintner, Timothy. “Social Studies (Still) on the Backburner: Perceptions
and Practices of K–5 Social Studies Instruction.” Journal of Social
Studies Research 30, no. 1 (2006): 3–8.
Little, David. “Learning As Dialogue: The Dependence of Learner Au-
tonomy on Teacher Autonomy.” System 23, no. 2 (1995): 175–82.
Lortie, Dan C. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1975.
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. Designing Qualitative
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.
Morgado, Jose Carlos, and Francisco Sousa. “Teacher Evaluation, Cur-
ricular Autonomy and Professional Development: Trends and Ten-
sions in the Portuguese Educational Policy.” Journal of Education
Policy 25, no. 3 (2010): 369–84.
Pace, Judy. “The Complex and Unequal Impact of High Stakes Account-
ability on Untested Social Studies.” Theory & Research in Social
Education 39, no. 1 (2011): 32–60.
Passe, Jeff. “New Challenges in Elementary Social Studies.” The Social
Studies 97, no. 5 (2006): 189–92.
 100
Pounder, Diana G. “Promises and Pitfalls of Collaboration: Synthesizing
Dilemmas.” In Restructuring Schools for Collaboration: Promises
and Pitfalls, edited by D. G. Pounder, 173–80. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press, 1998.
Pyhältö, Kirsi, Janne Pietarinen, and Katariina Salmela-Aro.
“Teacher–Working-Environment Fit As a Framework for Burnout
Experienced by Finnish Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education
27, no. 7 (2011): 1101–10.
Robbins, Pam, and Harvey Alvy. The Principal’s Companion. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin, 1995.
Rock, Tracy, Tina Heafner, Katherine O’Connor, Jeff Passe, Susan
Oldendorf, Amy Good, and Sandra Byrd. “One State Closer to
a National Crisis: A Report on Elementary Social Studies in North
Carolina Schools.” Theory and Research in Social Education 34, no.
4 (2006): 455–83.
Roscigno, Vincent J. “Power, Revisited.” Social Forces 90, no. 2 (2011):
Downloaded by [University of the Philippines Diliman] at 23:42 10 January 2018
349–74.
Schwartz, Audrey J. “Organizational Metaphors, Curriculum Reform,
and Local School and District Change.” In The Politics of Curricu-
lum Decision Making: Issues in Centralizing the Curriculum, edited
by M. Frances Klein, 167–97. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1991.
Skaalvik, Einer M., and Sidsel Skaalvik. “Does School Context Matter?
Relations with Teacher Burnout and Job Satisfaction.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 25, no. 3 (2009): 518–24.
Stake, Robert E. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1995.
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, 1998.
Anderson
Thieman, Gail, Patrice Preston-Grimes, Joseph E. O Brien, John P.
Broome, Tom Barker, Ashley G. Lucas, Jeff Passe, and Paul G.
From the Field: What Social Studies Teachers Say They Do in the
Classroom. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association annual conference, April 2012, Vancouver, Canada.
Thornton, Stephen. “Educating the Educators: Rethinking the Subject
Area and Methods.” Theory into Practice 40, no. 1 (2001): 72–78.
Tschannen-Moran, Megan. “Fostering Teacher Professionalism in
Schools.” Educational Administration 45, no. 2 (2009): 217–47.
VanFossen, Phillip J. “Reading and Math Take So Much of the Time. . .”:
An Overview of Social Studies Instruction in Elementary Class-
rooms in Indiana.” Theory and Research in Social Education 33, no.
3 (2005): 376–403.
Van Hover, Stephanie D. “Teaching in the Old Dominion.” In Measuring
History: Cases of State-Level Testing across the United States, edited
by Scott G. Grand, 195–219. Greenwich, CT: Information Age,
2006.
Weber, Max. “Domination by Economic Power and by Authority.” In
Power, edited by Steven Lukes, 28–36. New York: New York Uni-
versity Press, 1986.
Winkler, Amber. “Division in the Ranks: Standardized Testing Lines
Drawn between New and Veteran Teachers.” Phi Delta Kappan 84,
no. 3 (2002): 219–25.
Wills, John S. “Putting the Squeeze on the Social Studies: Managing
Teaching Dilemmas in Subject Areas Excluded from State Testing.”
Teachers College Record 109, no. 8 (2007): 1980–2046.
Yon, Maria, and Jeff Passe. “The Relationship between the Elemen-
tary Social Studies Methods Course and Student Teachers’ Beliefs
and Practices.” Journal of Social Studies Research 14, no. 1 (1990):
13–24.