Integration of Diversity in Social Studies 

One of the most interesting perspectives and theories I have read in this class was proposed to us by Postman(1995), the idea of a “school-god narrative” (p. ). The idea of school is like that of a Church, except not in the traditional religious setting most people are accustomed to hearing and seeing. Postman (1995) refers to the term “god” as a metaphor indicating a powerful narrative that “tells of origins and envisions a future, a story that constructs ideals, prescribes ruled of conduct, and provides a source of authority, and above all, gives a sense of community and purpose (Postman, 1995, pp.2-3). In a way, school can be compared to a religion in a sense, especially to that of Christianity. Christians have a set schedule, every Sunday, where they attend church, to learn from a pastor of the teachings of their God and learn how to achieve salvation. Students have a set schedule as well, where they go to school every day to learn, and learn how to achieve their own type of salvation, the extrinsic and intrinsic goals of the education system. For Christianity, the extrinsic goal of their religion includes salvation; meanwhile the intrinsic goal is to maintain the habit of performing good deeds for mankind out of pure kindness. The extrinsic goal of education is also a type of salvation, good grades which equate to a successful and lucrative future, “to prepare children for competent entry into the economic life of a community, what are schools for – what is anything for- if not to provide us with the means to earn our bread? (Postman, 1995, p.15).” The intrinsic goal, the ultimate goal of educators, is to instill a pure desire in students to want to do well in school for the pure joy of learning and to make the world a better place with their knowledge (Jackson, 1990, p.28).

Being an immigrant, the narrative of the “school-god” was an important one in my household. I recognized the sacrifices my parents had to make in order to establish themselves in America, and they had a high belief in the system of education being a pathway to success and economic freedom which they instilled in me as well. However, as I got older and realized I myself wanted to become a Social Studies teacher, my ultimate goal was to diminish the extrinsic mindset and instead try to foster more of an intrinsic goal set in my future students. Social Studies is a great subject in order to inspire this type of desire in students and offers many wonderful philosophies which we have read throughout the course that can help build what I personally would love to achieve in the future. Social Studies teachers have the power and mindset to become the trustworthy “vessels” to the “Heaven” of knowledge for students. They must overcome many obstacles including traditional routes which has fostered distaste in Social Studies, meanwhile defending their subject in a state, which as discussed numerous times through class discussions and assignments, doesn’t require a federal assessment for the subject. We must inspire students to see the value in Social Studies education, and make them believe in the “school-god” narrative, otherwise there isn’t much motivating them towards the opportunity to succeed. There needs to be a motivation, otherwise it just turns into reason, and a reason means they have a “god to serve”, instead of a narrative they owe to themselves as a student.

One of the most famous traditional methods in Social Studies education requires the method of “depositing” and “banking” information from teacher to student (Freire, 2019, p.2). Traditionally, the teacher teaches and the student is taught, the teacher knows everything, and the student knows nothing, the teacher talks and the students listen (Freire, 2019, p.73). Due to my high interest in Social Studies and all of its components, as a student I never minded this. However, I can see how to the majority of other students, this can lead to students taking on a passive role, instead of relating to the material and connecting to it in a way they understand and remember. It has definitely given a subject like Social Studies a bad reputation with students, and it is definitely a method I want to try avoiding as much as possible as a future teacher. Too many times I have personally witnessed teachers depositing historical names and dates unto students, forcing them to remember the material for a test, only to have students forget everything they learned a day after the exam. When there is no connection to the material, it doesn’t register as anything of value or importance in the minds of students. As Parker (2015) states, Social Studies embodies a limitless body of subject content, and it gets constrained by limited time (p.8). So the question becomes what do we teach, and how do we teach it in a way that stands out and makes students appreciate the subject as much as we do?

One of my personal favorite philosophies which nurtures this type of idea is that of Harold Rugg, mentioned in numerous class discussions of the chapter written by Kleibard and Wegner (2002). Rugg’s philosophy is to apply the aspects of Government, Civics, Geography, and social issues with History in order to make Social Studies more comprehensive (Kleibard and Wegner, 2002, p.63). He didn’t believe in “rigid compartmentalization”, which once again leads to the passive role students are expected to maintain in classrooms, and ultimately leads to depositing and banking without any relation to current issues in their lives (Kleibard and Wegner, 2002, p.64). The concept was to weave all of the elements lesson by lesson the facts, movements, and conditions that depend on one another to make one large historical picture (Kleibard and Wegner, 2002, p.64). Students simply retain more when they understand what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, otherwise it holds absolutely zero significance other than being just a plain fact to memorize. By weaving instead of compartmentalizing, it could actually save time in a subject that is so time-limited in the sense where it creates a historical story, like a movie with characters, plots, themes, and conflicts. Rugg was also infamously known to be a “devils” advocate, which is what I believe you need to be when teaching a subject like Social Studies (Evans, 2004, p.7). Playing “devil’s advocate” in History and social issues allows students to take on a multi-dimensional perspective, an important aspect to true historical and critical thinking. I personally take this philosophy a step further to say that although I believe Social studies teachers can have their own opinions, values, and political views, they must be open to new and different ideas or else they risk a disservice to their students on their journey to achieve historical thinking.

Rugg’s philosophy, although highly beneficial and effective, is impossible to foster the type of historical critical thinking us future educators seek after in our students without the basic foundations proposed by J. Martin Rochester (2003). Although the piece was by far one of the most humorous ones I’ve read, it holds major significance. Rugg and Rochester both had the same end goal in mind, but used different methods to get there. In a way, their philosophies fit into the “lightbulb” we discussed during one of our class discussions, where Rochester is at the bottom of the bulb, creating a solid foundation and the electric current needed to fully appreciate and understand the level of critical thinking Rugg offers. Essentially, I agree with Rochester, who doesn’t believe the students of today have the essential base, the “current” to get to the level of critical thinking Rugg proposes. “On the knowledge dimension, the public is widely ignorant of elemental features of the republic (including what it means to be a republic as opposed to a democracy). Fewer than one-third of the American people can name their representatives in Congress or their U.S. senators, and barely half even know that they have two senators (Rochester, 2003, p.3). My father would always repeat the same Russian proverb all throughout my life, ““There is no shame in not knowing, the only shame lies in not finding out.” We live in a time where more than ever, people have more freedom to speak their minds and let their voices be heard. This is absolutely something I want to foster in my future students, but not without the proper knowledge base.

Lastly, the most important philosophy I have gained through this course is the integration of the diversity and challenges of culture, identity, and even sexual orientation of every student into Social Studies. The pathway to the “Heaven” of knowledge shouldn’t exclude a student due to their background, culture, religion, or sexual orientation; instead their perspectives should serve as a way to connect to the history being taught to them. As Banks, Cookson, Gay, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto, Schofield, and Stephan (2015) mentioned, it only benefit students, not inhibits them (p.85). “Young people’s perspectives about the social world, like those of historians and teachers, are shaped by their identities as members of families, communities, regions, and nations, as well as by their affiliations with racial, religious, and other groups (Epstein and Shiller, 2015, p.113).” History never involved just one cultural group, religious identity, or heteronormativity (Banks, Cookson, Gay, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto, Schofield & Stephan, 2015, p.85) I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to witness this in my observations at Bound Brook High School with Mr. Shaun Cleary, a Social Studies teacher for freshman students. The majority of the student body is Hispanic, and many of them are emerging bilinguals, their native language being Spanish. Mr. Cleary did a wonderful job connecting American concepts and history to those of their individual cultures, values, and beliefs. The students were able to connect more with the topic at hand, and held more elaborate discussions. Both teacher and student learned from each other, I myself learned a lot about the Hispanic culture and history from these students. The most interesting tool I witnessed Mr. Cleary take advantage of was including subtitles in lectures and movies the class watched and learned from. According to him, the problem is not the content or the intellect but rather the language barrier preventing certain students to reach their full potential in his class. History and historical thinking were never solely bound to the English language. New Jersey is a state so rich in immigrant history, perspectives, cultures, and language, and the immigrant population continues to rise as time goes on. How can we expect student to believe and motivate themselves to devote themselves to the “school-god” or “Social Studies- god” if their own narratives they bring to the classroom are excluded?