Social Studies versus History

[PachiSusan]

What is the difference, and should one be teaching both? Separately? Together? One or the other? Neither?

 

What does the HIVE say?

[Roadrunner]

Social studies is often a random collection of facts (not always historical) or vocabulary study (what is citizenship...) that has sadly replaced what should be taught (history). History needs to be taught. Some things taught in Social Studies should be part of History class, others acquired at home. I really don't understand why my kids needed a unit on the functioning of the postal service. This sort of thing isn't academic. However some topics, like the type of government we have, clearly should be taught as part of history.

[regentrude]

Social studies is a diffuse catch-all phrase for often watered down content- a bit of history, a bit of human geography, a large amount of common sense platitudes (people in the community). I do not teach "social studies". I teach history, geography, and later government/civics.

[Luckymama]

We do history, geography, and government----but not all as separate classes before high school! Until this year, geography was intermixed with history (ancient history, Renaissance etc). This year we studied geography as a separate class with a mix of physical geography and cultural geography (or human geography as it is called at higher levels). We talked a lot during the election cycle about government and politics, nothing formal.

 

In high school I would expect a separate government/civics class and perhaps a separate geography class. I know if dd remains at home she will take both :)

[MASHomeschooler]

Next year I plan to start having an "other social studies" topic or two per year that I cover in addition to history. Some of them will mesh well with history, but just be given more time and emphasis than they would otherwise, and some will be more separate. (Next year we will be doing US Geography along with US History.) My list so far includes:

 

Geography (world and US)

Government/Civics (comparative and US)

Economics (micro and macro) - this falls under math and social studies

World Religions

Philosophy

 

I have also noted that anthropology, archaeology, law, political science, psychology, and sociology are considered part of social studies, and may work some of those in later, but not necessarily. I agree that what is often called "social studies" is very basic and should be picked up through life, but I do think there other important aspects of social studies beyond just history.

[Luckymama]

For those looking ahead to high school, a competitive college applicant will take at least two years of history (usually US and some flavor of world) with the other years taken from the social sciences (government, economics, and psychology are the most common). Classes may be one or two semesters long so that many topics may be covered during those four years :)

[Mrs Twain]

I agree with the above posts. For the elementary, I teach separate subjects which include world history, American history, state knowledge and history, geography (content and map skills), civics/government, and basic economics. I don't know why they lump all of these together in public school and call them social studies. Perhaps it is because there is not much time devoted to them, and so lumping them together as one subject seems more efficient.

[Ellie]

I don't do "social studies," any more than I do "language arts." I do history and geography, and current events, and government/civics. Not "social studies."

[PachiSusan]

I love you ladies!! I thought I was alone in thinking that social studies as a stand alone was a cheap substitute for history and not as important as mainstream thinks it is as a subject. I would much rather teach history!

[Hunter]

I'm :biggrinjester: . I teach social studies. :lol:

 

I teach a LOT more geography than I do history with a focus on physical geography. Geography has so many branches, that I find it to be a better focus than history.

 

I spend a lot of time on the Declaration of Human Rights.

 

I cover a lot of civics while reading through biographies of the Founding Fathers.

 

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc are all fascinating to me, even more than history. I'm pretty lackadaisical about my approach to teaching history. That doesn't mean a lot of history doesn't get LEARNED, but I have trouble explicitly teaching something so slippery. LOTS of history just happens here almost by accident. The other topics take a bit more effort on my part.

 

If anyone likes patriarchal worldview materials, Bedell covers a LOT of social studies topics. This series make a great read aloud.

[Hunter]

I wanted to add that I think focusing on history instead of social studies is a GREAT idea. It's just not what I PERSONALLY do.

[PachiSusan]

I'm :biggrinjester: . I teach social studies. :lol:

 

I teach a LOT more geography than I do history with a focus on physical geography. Geography has so many branches, that I find it to be a better focus than history.

 

I spend a lot of time on the Declaration of Human Rights.

 

I cover a lot of civics while reading through biographies of the Founding Fathers.

 

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc are all fascinating to me, even more than history. I'm pretty lackadaisical about my approach to teaching history. That doesn't mean a lot of history doesn't get LEARNED, but I have trouble explicitly teaching something so slippery. LOTS of history just happens here almost by accident. The other topics take a bit more effort on my part.

 

If anyone likes patriarchal worldview materials, Bedell covers a LOT of social studies topics. This series make a great read aloud.

 

 

I certainly don't want anyone to think I don't teach any of the above. I do, and I know they come under the umbrella of Social Sciences. I just don't like the "global" attitude that many of the social studies texts use, so I really try to avoid them. I do all of these topics, but through the microscope of history and as a stand alone. We do geography, and we talk about all the other things you mention. :)

[PachiSusan]

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc are all fascinating to me, even more than history. I'm pretty lackadaisical about my approach to teaching history

 

You just mentioned my major at the University: Behavioral Sciences - which are a mixture of Anthropology, sociology, and psychology, with elementary education classes thrown in there for me. I was working on a minor in ed.

 

I just see them as topics SEPARATE but PART Of the history puzzle, if that makes sense. Not the sum total. My friend's daughter is in 4th grade and her curriculum is almost ALL social studies and very little history.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Well, I just love Social Studies! (I also love Language Arts. :D) History does not exist in a vacuum. It is not an isolated subject, by its very nature. (For that matter, neither is grammar, poetry, etc. :tongue_smilie:) I like it when subjects play nicely together. Just because the schools dumb down the social sciences and make a soporific, syrupy, PC mess out of what should be inherently fascinating doesn't mean linking disciplines is heresy. I think the opposite is true, actually, that it is heresy to separate them out.

 

My favorite book about teaching history is actually called Social Studies That Sticks. You can read the first part of the first chapter on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Social-Studies-That-Sticks-Concepts/dp/0325010595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369258603&sr=8-1&keywords=social+studies+that+sticks) and a sample of the book which discusses the use of primary sources at the publisher's site (http://www.heinemann.com/products/E01059.aspx). Just take a look at the list of social sciences (on page 5) that fall under the Social Studies umbrella. Good stuff. Connected to history. Fascinating on its own merits, certainly, but also inseparable from the study of history. I mean, good luck talking about ancient Egyptian history without a discussion about geography and the Nile. Actually, I would argue that too much separation between these strands and history would be dumbing down. I like my Social Studies multi-faceted.

 

Again, I am not a fan of the PS way of teaching Social Studies but, at least in our homeschool, I have no problem with the term.

[Roadrunner]

I'm :biggrinjester: . I teach social studies. :lol:

 

I teach a LOT more geography than I do history with a focus on physical geography. Geography has so many branches, that I find it to be a better focus than history.

 

I spend a lot of time on the Declaration of Human Rights.

 

I cover a lot of civics while reading through biographies of the Founding Fathers.

 

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc are all fascinating to me, even more than history. I'm pretty lackadaisical about my approach to teaching history. That doesn't mean a lot of history doesn't get LEARNED, but I have trouble explicitly teaching something so slippery. LOTS of history just happens here almost by accident.

 

See, I think of studying the Declaration of Human Rights as part of history as well as many more documents. I would throw in the biographies there as well.

Political geography can be done as part of history. I had a separate class on it though.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people are referring to political science when they say social studies. If so, I would teach that until HS as part of phylosophy and part history.

[PachiSusan]

Well, I just love Social Studies! (I also love Language Arts. :D) History does not exist in a vacuum. It is not an isolated subject, by its very nature. (For that matter, neither is grammar, poetry, etc. :tongue_smilie:) I like it when subjects play nicely together. Just because the schools dumb down the social sciences and make a soporific, syrupy, PC mess out of what should be inherently fascinating doesn't mean linking disciplines is heresy. I think the opposite is true, actually, that it is heresy to separate them out.

 

My favorite book about teaching history is actually called Social Studies That Sticks. You can read the first part of the first chapter on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co...ies that sticks) and a sample of the book which discusses the use of primary sources at the publisher's site (http://www.heinemann...cts/E01059.aspx). Just take a look at the list of social sciences (on page 5) that fall under the Social Studies umbrella. Good stuff. Connected to history. Fascinating on its own merits, certainly, but also inseparable from the study of history. I mean, good luck talking about ancient Egyptian history without a discussion about geography and the Nile. Actually, I would argue that too much separation between these strands and history would be dumbing down. I like my Social Studies multi-faceted.

 

Again, I am not a fan of the PS way of teaching Social Studies but, at least in our homeschool, I have no problem with the term.

 

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly!! My favorite things in school were social studies related - I loved reading about all the different peoples, customs, way of life, geography - all those things were my favorites in school.

 

I think what I need to reign in is my propensity to see what's "wrong" in the way the schools teach it NOW instead of figuring how it can work WELL in my home. Thank you for the kick in the pants.

[PachiSusan]

See, I think of studying the Declaration of Human Rights as part of history as well as many more documents. I would throw in the biographies there as well.

Political geography can be done as part of history. I had a separate class on it though.

 

Sometimes I wonder if people are referring to political science when they say social studies. If so, I would teach that until HS as part of phylosophy and part history.

 

 

Not me. I mean social studies in the context in which it is taught in schools today - a vehicle for globalization and a celebration of how we are all one big human family - which is not wrong, but sometimes taught to the detriment of originality, independent thought, and celebration of diversity.

[Bang!Zoom!]

Pet peeve of mine here. I don't teach SS either.

[Mandy in TN]

I like the word social studies as an umbrella that covers history, geography, culture, government, economics, etc.

 

When I create spreadsheets for the material we cover in a school year, I have used the main headings of mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies for the four main topics. Under those main headings, I have used different sub-headings. For example, under mathematics I frequently have the sub-headings exploration, drill, and lesson. I have also used concept, mental math, repetition, algebra, geometry, advanced math, and numeracy as subheadings over the years. Under language arts, i have used subheadings like dictation, handwriting, grammar, composition, spelling, phonics, and literature. Science has had subheadings like life, earth, physical, or hands-on and text. I have used social studies as an umbrella heading for what I mentioned above as well as humanities and social science type courses like psychology and philosophy.

 

There is nothing wrong with the word social studies and it is particularly useful for sorting a spreadsheet. If I have a column of umbrella headings, I can filter the spreadsheet so that I can view only lines that fall under that heading.

 

:) Mandy

 

 

 

[SarahW]

When I think of "social studies" I usually think of the books I come across in the children's section of the library that have very brief titles like "China" or "India." When I open them I see that the book tries to cram ALL of "China" or "India" into 25 pages. The problem I see is that this smashing a culture down into its pancake form makes that culture look both excessively exotic and boring.

 

But I agree that history should be interdisciplinary, because it is. But I think that can be done chronologically better than telescopically.

[Hunter]

All topics are interrelated. Whatever we choose to make our focus will eventually draw in almost everything else. If I start with physical geography and human rights the history will fall into those lessons. For people that start with history, the geography will fall in. Mostly we all end out in the same destination in the long run.

 

As for globalization, I have citizenship in 3 countries and teach students from many different countries. I've been having to consciously focus on American lately, or it seems like we only study everything but. I think it is important to focus on the birth country of children and where people have chosen to live. I'm thankful What Your _ Grader Needs to Know has an American history strand every book, to keep me on track.

[fourisenough]

I teach history, geography, and current events every year. I also teach the following 'social studies' topic in a round-robin fashion: state history (3rd grade-ish), U.S. States & Capitals (4th grade-ish), Presidents of the U.S. (5th grade-ish), government (6th grade-ish), economics (7th grade-ish), world religions (8th grade-ish).

 

The topics often included in primary grades social studies curriculums, such as neighborhoods, communities, helpers (firefighters, postal carriers, bus drivers, farmers, etc) just make me laugh. How are those considered school subjects? Do they assume children are institutionalized from birth and, therefore, are in need of being taught about things they've never seen/experienced before? I sure hope not. And if so, they'll need much more than a brief unit in school to learn everything they've missed!

[PachiSusan]

All topics are interrelated. Whatever we choose to make our focus will eventually draw in almost everything else. If I start with physical geography and human rights the history will fall into those lessons. For people that start with history, the geography will fall in. Mostly we all end out in the same destination in the long run.

 

As for globalization, I have citizenship in 3 countries and teach students from many different countries. I've been having to consciously focus on American lately, or it seems like we only study everything but. I think it is important to focus on the birth country of children and where people have chosen to live. I'm thankful What Your _ Grader Needs to Know has an American history strand every book, to keep me on track.

 

Just to be clear, I don't mean globalization in that way. What i mean is very specific: the underlying teaching in certain books that make it clear that the only way we will ever get along and understand eachother is to be ONE world...not in ANY way saying we should not learn about other countries. On the contrary, I think we should learn MUCH MORE about all the other countries - but celebrate what makes them different, know how we are simliar, but not homogenizing the whole world by focusing ONLY on all the similarities we have. "Common Good", "common...". Those kind of things.

 

I don't know if I'm making the distinction clear enough. If I'm not, I'll try again. LOL

[PachiSusan]

Answers in bold within your post

 

I teach history, geography, and current events every year. I also teach the following 'social studies' topic in a round-robin fashion: state history (3rd grade-ish), U.S. States & Capitals (4th grade-ish), Presidents of the U.S. (5th grade-ish), government (6th grade-ish), economics (7th grade-ish), world religions (8th grade-ish).

 

I don't see this as Social Studies - I see this as within the scope of history. Am I wrong in this?

 

The topics often included in primary grades social studies curriculums, such as neighborhoods, communities, helpers (firefighters, postal carriers, bus drivers, farmers, etc) just make me laugh.

 

Those are things I'm talking about. Really? We need a year to learn about these things?? LOL

 

How are those considered school subjects? Do they assume children are institutionalized from birth and, therefore, are in need of being taught about things they've never seen/experienced before? I sure hope not. And if so, they'll need much more than a brief unit in school to learn everything they've missed!

 

So true!

[Roadrunner]

The topics often included in primary grades social studies curriculums, such as neighborhoods, communities, helpers (firefighters, postal carriers, bus drivers, farmers, etc) just make me laugh. How are those considered school subjects? Do they assume children are institutionalized from birth and, therefore, are in need of being taught about things they've never seen/experienced before? I sure hope not. And if so, they'll need much more than a brief unit in school to learn everything they've missed!

This has been my experience. My kids are young, so I don't know what goes in in upper grades, but yes, I don't understand why school is teaching these things. It's ridiculous.

[Mandy in TN]

The topics often included in primary grades social studies curriculums, such as neighborhoods, communities, helpers (firefighters, postal carriers, bus drivers, farmers, etc) just make me laugh. How are those considered school subjects? Do they assume children are institutionalized from birth and, therefore, are in need of being taught about things they've never seen/experienced before? I sure hope not. And if so, they'll need much more than a brief unit in school to learn everything they've missed!

This has been my experience. My kids are young, so I don't know what goes in in upper grades, but yes, I don't understand why school is teaching these things. It's ridiculous.

Truly, there are children who would never be exposed to these things at home. There are children who live in home environments where there is very little language spoken or written. For these children, this experience at school is the only exposure they will have to this vocabulary that we take for granted. Not always is this due to a bad home environment. You could have a loving parent who due to low IQ, being hearing impaired, or having been raised themselves in an environment without language doesn't consider carrying on the sort of verbal communication with a non-verbal infant or babbling toddler that would include this sort of vocabulary. I agree that the unit they do in school isn't enough by itself, but if the child now has a word or two of vocabulary it may cause conversations to occur that otherwise would not.

 

Mandy

 

 

[Hunter]

Truly, there are children who would never be exposed to these things at home. There are children who live in home environments where there is very little language spoken or written. For these children, this experience at school is the only exposure they will have to this vocabulary that we take for granted. Not always is this due to a bad home environment. You could have a loving parent who due to low IQ, being hearing impaired, or having been raised themselves in an environment without language doesn't consider carrying on the sort of verbal communication with a non-verbal infant or babbling toddler that would include this sort of vocabulary. I agree that the unit they do in school isn't enough by itself, but if the child now has a word or two of vocabulary it may cause conversations to occur that otherwise would not.

 

Mandy

 

 

Also sometimes it's working from the familiar to the less familiar, so the process starts with the post office and the fireman. Also, sometimes the lesson is focused more on learning to read than the content, and early reading lessons need to be focused on learning to read, not reading to learn. Like Mandy I don't disagree with typical K-3 social studies. I also don't disagree with skipping them.

[Hunter]

 

Just to be clear, I don't mean globalization in that way. What i mean is very specific: the underlying teaching in certain books that make it clear that the only way we will ever get along and understand eachother is to be ONE world...not in ANY way saying we should not learn about other countries. On the contrary, I think we should learn MUCH MORE about all the other countries - but celebrate what makes them different, know how we are simliar, but not homogenizing the whole world by focusing ONLY on all the similarities we have. "Common Good", "common...". Those kind of things.

 

I don't know if I'm making the distinction clear enough. If I'm not, I'll try again. LOL

 

 

Thanks for clarifying! I get it now :D Just like the postman and fireman lessons, I don't disagree with either approach :D In my ultra-conservative Christian stage, I was taught a one church way of thinking that was very close to the one world way of thinking. I get both sides.

[Farrar]

Because this is a classical forum, it doesn't surprise me that more people think history should be the overarching lens, but really you can teach the content of "social studies" through a lot of different lenses. It doesn't have to be chronological history. Nor does it have to be watered down if it's not history-centric. Political systems, geography, psychology, and so forth are meaty topics in their own right and it's a bit condescending IMO to say that only history can be the primary focus and that all the others must fall in line with history. That's one good way to do it. Not the only way.

 

A friend refers to the early social studies in public schools and other places as, "for children who have never been outside." I do think social studies is pretty watered down and weak in a lot of schools. On the other hand, I appreciate the point Mandy made above about the need to teach to all students. And just because it's done poorly in many schools doesn't mean the subject itself is bad. I think homeschoolers often make this mistake about ideas and teaching methods (and even, in this case, entire subjects) from the public schools. Just because they do it poorly doesn't mean it can't be done well if the idea is right.

[Roadrunner]

 

Truly, there are children who would never be exposed to these things at home. There are children who live in home environments where there is very little language spoken or written. For these children, this experience at school is the only exposure they will have to this vocabulary that we take for granted. Not always is this due to a bad home environment. You could have a loving parent who due to low IQ, being hearing impaired, or having been raised themselves in an environment without language doesn't consider carrying on the sort of verbal communication with a non-verbal infant or babbling toddler that would include this sort of vocabulary. I agree that the unit they do in school isn't enough by itself, but if the child now has a word or two of vocabulary it may cause conversations to occur that otherwise would not.

 

Mandy

See, school can't be everything for everybody. It's replacing/displacing what should matter more (history) in an academic environment. Most kids (at least where we are) don't need this type of instruction. I guess case can be made for after-school enrichment for those that do.

[Roadrunner]

 

Truly, there are children who would never be exposed to these things at home. There are children who live in home environments where there is very little language spoken or written. For these children, this experience at school is the only exposure they will have to this vocabulary that we take for granted. Not always is this due to a bad home environment. You could have a loving parent who due to low IQ, being hearing impaired, or having been raised themselves in an environment without language doesn't consider carrying on the sort of verbal communication with a non-verbal infant or babbling toddler that would include this sort of vocabulary. I agree that the unit they do in school isn't enough by itself, but if the child now has a word or two of vocabulary it may cause conversations to occur that otherwise would not.

 

Mandy

See, school can't be everything for everybody. It's replacing/displacing what should matter more (history) in an academic environment. Most kids (at least where we are) don't need this type of instruction. I guess case can be made for after-school enrichment for those who do.

[PachiSusan]

Because this is a classical forum, it doesn't surprise me that more people think history should be the overarching lens, but really you can teach the content of "social studies" through a lot of different lenses. It doesn't have to be chronological history. Nor does it have to be watered down if it's not history-centric. Political systems, geography, psychology, and so forth are meaty topics in their own right and it's a bit condescending IMO to say that only history can be the primary focus and that all the others must fall in line with history. That's one good way to do it. Not the only way.

 

A friend refers to the early social studies in public schools and other places as, "for children who have never been outside." I do think social studies is pretty watered down and weak in a lot of schools. On the other hand, I appreciate the point Mandy made above about the need to teach to all students. And just because it's done poorly in many schools doesn't mean the subject itself is bad. I think homeschoolers often make this mistake about ideas and teaching methods (and even, in this case, entire subjects) from the public schools. Just because they do it poorly doesn't mean it can't be done well if the idea is right.

 

I have always valued your input here at WTM. Could you explain a little more how you feel that it's condescending to value history above social studies? I have always seen them as facets of the same diamond, but I've never thought of it being a bad thing to have history as the focus and social studies as the sprinkles on the ice cream.

 

Boy I'm so full of flowery language today. :laugh:

[Farrar]

 

 

I have always valued your input here at WTM. Could you explain a little more how you feel that it's condescending to value history above social studies? I have always seen them as facets of the same diamond, but I've never thought of it being a bad thing to have history as the focus and social studies as the sprinkles on the ice cream.

 

Boy I'm so full of flowery language today. :laugh:

 

I don't think it's bad at all. In fact, that's how we approach social studies - through history mostly. But above more than one person expressed the idea that history is good and social studies is bad. And that history is rigorous and social studies is watered down. I think that's just incorrect. The way that pubic schools present history and social studies both tends to be watered down. But if someone wanted to present social studies subjects through the lens of geography, for example, that could absolutely be as rigorous and I think it's condescending to say otherwise.

[Roadrunner]

Political systems, geography, psychology, and so forth are meaty topics in their own right and it's a bit condescending IMO to say that only history can be the primary focus and that all the others must fall in line with history. That's one good way to do it.

Everything you list is a subject on its own. Geography is geography, not social studies. I had 2 years of physical geography followed by political geography independent of the history class in PS and I see a great value in it. Political science/government and psycology are different subjects that belong in high school (our high school offers these). All of these have a place of their own. I don't see a need to create a strange soup out of it and call it social studies.

At least in elementary school social studies teaches none of the above, but whatever it does teach (fire department and such) takes place of history and isn't an added subject.

[Chelli]

Everything you list is a subject on its own. Geography is geography, not social studies. I had 2 years of physical geography followed by political geography independent of the history class in PS and I see a great value in it. Political science/government and psycology are different subjects that belong in high school (our high school offers these). All of these have a place of their own. I don't see a need to create a strange soup out of it and call it social studies.

At least in elementary school social studies teaches none of the above, but whatever it does teach (fire department and such) takes place of history and isn't an added subject.

 

 

I have to disagree on this one. My teaching license was for Social Sciences Grades 7-12. Underneath the umbrella of the social sciences were history, geography (all kinds), civics/government, economics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, religion. I could have taught any of these subjects with my license. They are considered social sciences (or social studies) because all of these topics deal with people and how they interact with each other and with the world. Once you really start to delve into these "individual" subjects you begin to see how closely related they all are. For example, in the U.S., the philosophy of the colonial leaders led to the Revolutionary War. The religion and philosophy of of our founders led them to set up the type of government we have today. This type of government has had a direct impact on our history as has the American philosophy and psychology as a nation. Economics and the geography of a country plays a HUGE role in history including ours (Louisiana Purchase and the Great Depression are two examples). All of this history, government, economics, philosophy, religion, and psychology all swirls around to give us the society (sociology) that we have today. Why we value that independent American spirit. Why we consider our country to be a land of opportunity where anyone can make it. Whether are not these claims are true is not the point. They are part of our nation's sociological make up.

 

As for what they do in elementary, as others have said they start with what children know, their community (society) and delve deeper (at least in theory) into the specifics that make up our society and the world as children get older. The idea is to start broad and narrow into the separate social science disciplines as students in ps advance.

[Lily_Grace]

We teach both here.

 

We teach social studies - cultural understanding, simple history, etc. and we teach history - how the decisions of the world affect where and who we are today. They cross, but they are separate.

 

But then, I also have a child who is determined to be a world traveler. :D Understanding why there are great big fires every January and the mindset of the people on political measures helps immensely when he's trying to figure things out in a new country.

[PachiSusan]

I don't think it's bad at all. In fact, that's how we approach social studies - through history mostly. But above more than one person expressed the idea that history is good and social studies is bad. And that history is rigorous and social studies is watered down. I think that's just incorrect. The way that pubic schools present history and social studies both tends to be watered down. But if someone wanted to present social studies subjects through the lens of geography, for example, that could absolutely be as rigorous and I think it's condescending to say otherwise.

 

 

Thank you!! I completely understand what you are saying now and I agree.

[Roadrunner]

History is also related, yet we teach it as a separate subject. That doesn't mean that connections aren't being made. Only a crappy teacher would teach these subjects without making connections. That doesn't mean it has to be crammed into one class. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Nobody is arguing that subject matter doesn't overlap.

Add philosophy into the mix.

[PachiSusan]

I've written and deleted, written and deleted, and written and deleted again, but I just can't get my words down about why I'm having such an issue with this topic. You have all given me some good thoughts to think about and discern how to go from here. Thank you for that.

 

I think I need to repeat to myself what I said earlier in the thread:

 

I think what I need to reign in is my propensity to see what's "wrong" in the way the schools teach it NOW instead of figuring how it can work WELL in my home. Just because it's not taught the way I understand Social Studies to be doesn't mean that I have to do it their way anyway!

 

My major was Behavioral Science and a lot of what social science is made up of is what I love - and I guess part of it is that it's not being taught as thoroughly anymore and that makes me sad. I remember being entranced with archaeology at a very young age, learning about the communities of ancient cultures, how people act in groups, etc...and that just isn't what SS is now. At least not in the CA textbooks that my friends children use. :(

[Mandy in TN]

 

See, school can't be everything for everybody. It's replacing/displacing what should matter more (history) in an academic environment. Most kids (at least where we are) don't need this type of instruction. I guess case can be made for after-school enrichment for those who do.

These topics are usually covered in k-2 and then history begins in grade 3. My youngest did world geography in k, but he also used MCP Maps, Charts, Graphs. It covers some of those topics. In 1st and 2nd, we did a two year world history. I don't know that it is less valuable to learn about famous manmade structures, famous natural landmarks, clothing around the world, holidays around the world, jobs people do, or famous women through time. Summer after 2nd grade ds studied the automobiles- the history of cars, the science of cars, cars in literature, cars in art, cars in poetry. In the 2nd grade ds read a chapter book, wrote a report, and gave an oral presentation at CC on William the Conqueror. We studied and did a mini-book on the Bayeux Tapestry. He can't even remember who William the Conqueror is. I won't say it was a waste of time to study world history and I know that I would do it again, but I do know that he knows an awful lot about automobiles. ;) Just because something isn't in an elementary history encyclopedia doesn't mean it is without value. The things that are studied briefly for social studies in k-2 classrooms, when the bulk of the time is spent teaching children to read and write, are things many children are curious about or find interesting. This may make these topics more memorable. My son had no interest in the history. He doesn't remember any of it and we did study it in-depth in a classroom of one, so I am certainly not going to be too concerned about whatever a traditional classroom teacher is trying to present in a content subject in k-2 classroom.

 

My concern with k-2 classroom is not content subjects. My concern? Are these children entering third grade able to read fluently, write fluidly and independently answer questions in complete sentences at a speed that enables them to keep up in class, and have they mastered addition and subtraction?

 

Mandy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Element]

Susan, I just had to say this was a great question. I have really enjoyed reading the responses.

 

I prefer to teach social science from a history focus, as that is what comes naturally for me. However, I don't think that is the best or only way to teach it.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I don't see a need to create a strange soup out of it and call it social studies.

 

Personally, I think it's not "strange soup" that is being offered to kids these days so much as insipid, unpalatable, watered down soup with odd combinations of ingredients. (Come to think of it, maybe that is strange. :lol:) Too many chefs in the kitchen and all that. (<---Catch my subtle dig on textbooks written by committee!?) :tongue_smilie: I agree that Social Studies as covered in typical schools is not great stuff. I also completely agree that each individual discipline is entirely worthy of studying on its own.

 

History is also related, yet we teach it as a separate subject. That doesn't mean that connections aren't being made. Only a crappy teacher would teach these subjects without making connections. That doesn't mean it has to be crammed into one class. I am not sure what you are trying to say. Nobody is arguing that subject matter doesn't overlap.

Add philosophy into the mix.

 

See, though, I don't think you can just teach history as a separate subject. It would be impossible to teach history as a subject separate from the individual social science disciplines. You don't have to say their names, LOL, but that doesn't mean they're not hanging out with history. Taking the list from SSTS, we've got:

 

Archaeology

Anthropology

Economics

Geography

History

Law

Philosophy

Politics

Psychology

Religion

Sociology

 

Good stuff, all! Of course people can and do spend years studying subsets of each of these disciplines. But, just the same, it would be impossible to study a single discipline on this list without the others forcing their way in. I would argue that the separation is pragmatic (allowing for the necessity of intensive study) but also artificial, and probably sometimes semantic. You could just as easily refer to the disciplines under the heading of "human experience" as "social sciences." They effortlessly blend together...and blur. Religion and psychology and sociology. Religion and politics. Philosophy and law. Law and politics...and religion...and sociology...and history. Geography and politics...and religion. Geography and anthropology and economics. Archaeology and history and geography.

 

I know you already agreed with this, by the way. :lol: I am not arguing with you, because I doubt we actually disagree.

 

I just really (REALLY!) think this is so doggone cool! This, to me, is Social Studies. I'm sorry for whatever drivel is being served to kids in schools these days (seriously, really sorry for those kids...and for the teachers who know the textbooks they're teaching from are boring as can be but whose hands are tied), but I'm going to define SS for myself and my kids, and it is fascinating stuff here.

 

I think what I need to reign in is my propensity to see what's "wrong" in the way the schools teach it NOW instead of figuring how it can work WELL in my home. Just because it's not taught the way I understand Social Studies to be doesn't mean that I have to do it their way anyway!

 

My major was Behavioral Science and a lot of what social science is made up of is what I love - and I guess part of it is that it's not being taught as thoroughly anymore and that makes me sad. I remember being entranced with archaeology at a very young age, learning about the communities of ancient cultures, how people act in groups, etc...and that just isn't what SS is now. At least not in the CA textbooks that my friends children use. :(

 

Right. But it can be what SS still is in your home. You certainly don't have to reject it as a concept. One of the things I love most about homeschooling is being able to make up my own rules. Make up your own rules! It's totally awesome. :D Soon you'll be adding a subject called "FLoop" or "Rabbit Trails" to your daily schedule. :tongue_smilie: Be daring; be yourself. You love something? Make it happen for your DD. Your school, your terms. :)

[PachiSusan]

So, is there a nice Behavioral Science curriculum out there for the grammar stage, or the logic stage, that you know of?

 

Since this is a new "focus" for me in school, I haven't found much yet. I think it's in the way it's taught as well as WHAT is taught.

 

I know for us, we are going to start with archaeology/anthropology. I WILL, of course, be teaching her about the time frame and what was going on in history at the time.

 

For instance: We are going to have a unit on KIng Tut and while we are going through his tomb and what was found there, we will be talking about ancient Egypt and how King Tut actually used those things and what the climate of Egypt was like at the time: religion, socially, economically, etc... I'm not just going to teach her about archaeology - I'm going to teach her how archaeology helped us to gain understanding of the time period.

 

Also, I'm researching Biblical Archaeology. It's fascinating right now. There are so many biblical places that are being found...

 

So far, I have in the way of media:

 

Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones, and a few Netflix streaming videos on archaeological digs. I have many DVD's on Ancient Egypt.

 

For books, I have one of my favorite books in college:

 

"Motel of the Mysteries"

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0395284252

 

I still have my copy from college. I will be using it to show her how important it is for archaeologists to not be so quick to judge what the purpose of something is when they find it.

 

She is also very interested in the Anasazi Cliff Dwellers, so I have some documentaries on them and our travel journal from when we went there when I was 13. I have all the guides, pictures, background of the area.

 

More than anything, I want her to learn that history and social studies is a story about human kind - what we did, why we did what we did, how we are shaped by attitudes and the communities we live in, what we've left behind...it's not just a series of dates and events. I think that's how I differentiate social studies from history. Social studies and the things it covers give LIFE to history.

 

If you're truly interested, I will be happy to share what I'm planning through the summer time. :) It's very much a work in progress!

[Alte Veste Academy]

My major was Behavioral Science and a lot of what social science is made up of is what I love - and I guess part of it is that it's not being taught as thoroughly anymore and that makes me sad.

 

So, is there a nice Behavioral Science curriculum out there for the grammar stage, or the logic stage, that you know of?

 

Susan, I think you would really like SSTS. It fosters deep understanding of people and their motives.

[PachiSusan]

Susan, I think you would really like SSTS. It fosters deep understanding of people and their motives.

 

what is STSS?

[Alte Veste Academy]

what is STSS?

 

Social Studies That Sticks, the book I linked in my first post.

[PachiSusan]

 

Right. But it can be what SS still is in your home. You certainly don't have to reject it as a concept. One of the things I love most about homeschooling is being able to make up my own rules. Make up your own rules! It's totally awesome. :D Soon you'll be adding a subject called "FLoop" or "Rabbit Trails" to your daily schedule. :tongue_smilie: Be daring; be yourself. You love something? Make it happen for your DD. Your school, your terms. :)

 

Thank you! That's what I'm trying to remind myself of. I am in control and my school doesn't have to be a reaction about what I don't like - but an action to what I DOlike!!!

[PachiSusan]

Social Studies That Sticks, the book I linked in my first post.

 

Thank you - I clicked on the links but hadn't looked at them yet. They were all lined up in tabs! That does look very interesting!

[kiwik]

 

Truly, there are children who would never be exposed to these things at home. There are children who live in home environments where there is very little language spoken or written. For these children, this experience at school is the only exposure they will have to this vocabulary that we take for granted. Not always is this due to a bad home environment. You could have a loving parent who due to low IQ, being hearing impaired, or having been raised themselves in an environment without language doesn't consider carrying on the sort of verbal communication with a non-verbal infant or babbling toddler that would include this sort of vocabulary. I agree that the unit they do in school isn't enough by itself, but if the child now has a word or two of vocabulary it may cause conversations to occur that otherwise would not.

 

Mandy

 

I think this is why our government brought in 20 hours free preschool care for 3 to 5 year olds. The earlier you can get to work the better the outcome. Of course there has to actually be facilities in the right places that don't alienate the parents - we are working on that.

 

Personally i thought having an excuse to talk to myself without getting odd looks was the biggest benefit of the young baby stage.

[Kathryn]

 

So, how do your local public schools do social studies?

 

 

Social Studies topics for my state by grade

K: children as citizens (maps, rules, authority figures, etc.)

1: families

2: communities

3: state studies

4: US history to 1865

5: US history since 1865

6: early cultures to 1600

7: contemporary cultures: 1600 to the present

8: state studies

9: world geography

10: world history

11: American history

12: American government and economics