A Multistate Critical Policy Analysis of Social Studies Standards Committee Processes.
Saved in:
| Title: | A Multistate Critical Policy Analysis of Social Studies Standards Committee Processes. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Martell, Christopher C.1 (AUTHOR), Harris, Lauren McArthur2 (AUTHOR), Carmichael, Jami2 (AUTHOR), Lee, J'Shon2 (AUTHOR), Chalmers, Jennifer P. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | American Journal of Education. May2025, Vol. 131 Issue 3, p397-423. 27p. |
| Subject Terms: | *State departments of education, *Educational standards, *Education policy, *Social sciences education, Power (Social sciences) |
| Abstract: | Purpose: This study examined the policy processes that occurred during the creation of social studies state standards across 18 states and the District of Columbia. Research Methods/Approach: Using a critical education policy studies approach, researchers analyzed policy documents, media reports, and interviews with state standards panel participants about state social studies standards development processes. Findings: (1) States had varying levels of internal and external transparency. Many involved partisan control over the standards' development, with state education agency (SEA) specialists having a clearer understanding of the process than educators. (2) Although all states had standards development committees composed of stakeholders, usually including educators, they varied in the processes used to develop standards. Language across states about timelines and committee compositions varied and was often vague or imprecise. (3) Educators generally had far less power and influence on the final standards compared with SEA specialists and politicians in the process. (4) Although the inclusion of politicians and special interest groups in the standards development process does have an important democratic role, they could also be disruptive to the work of educators on committees and sometimes had a direct effect on what content was eventually included or excluded. Implications: If state educational standards are to have a positive influence on classrooms, teachers should have trust that they are high quality and that fellow educators had a major role in their creation. Yet the actual role of educators in these processes is questioned, especially if they have their work undone by politicians or special interest groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of American Journal of Education is the property of University of Chicago and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: This study examined the policy processes that occurred during the creation of social studies state standards across 18 states and the District of Columbia. Research Methods/Approach: Using a critical education policy studies approach, researchers analyzed policy documents, media reports, and interviews with state standards panel participants about state social studies standards development processes. Findings: (1) States had varying levels of internal and external transparency. Many involved partisan control over the standards' development, with state education agency (SEA) specialists having a clearer understanding of the process than educators. (2) Although all states had standards development committees composed of stakeholders, usually including educators, they varied in the processes used to develop standards. Language across states about timelines and committee compositions varied and was often vague or imprecise. (3) Educators generally had far less power and influence on the final standards compared with SEA specialists and politicians in the process. (4) Although the inclusion of politicians and special interest groups in the standards development process does have an important democratic role, they could also be disruptive to the work of educators on committees and sometimes had a direct effect on what content was eventually included or excluded. Implications: If state educational standards are to have a positive influence on classrooms, teachers should have trust that they are high quality and that fellow educators had a major role in their creation. Yet the actual role of educators in these processes is questioned, especially if they have their work undone by politicians or special interest groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01956744 |
| DOI: | 10.1086/734976 |
