ABSTRACT
As Brophy (1993) and Barton and Levstik (2004) note in reviewing studies of teacher practice, the same course may be enacted in very different ways, depending on individual teachers’ goals, their sense of the purpose behind instruction in a particular discipline or area of the social studies, and the particular setting in which instruction takes place. Brophy (1993) further notes that the elementary teachers in the studies he reviewed emphasized student engagement and affective outcomes rather than content-speci c goals or social critique. Even teachers who engaged elementary students in inquiries that included discussion of the moral dimensions of content tended to make fewer attempts to address controversies or provide “countersocialization” than might social studies scholars (p. 222). Further, Brophy argues that classroom studies make clear that “exemplary” social studies teachers vary considerably one from another:
[T]hey often show maverick tendencies, being noteworthy for unusual or even unique approaches that are fueled by their personal interests in the subject and suited to their orientations and beliefs about what is involved in teaching it. These maverick tendencies of exemplary teachers call into question the feasibility and desirability of standardized curriculum guidelines and texts, even at the local level. (p. 225)
As a result, attempts to mandate particular forms of instruction within mandated course offerings should be viewed with considerable caution as more likely to inhibit exemplary teachers than mitigate the problems presented by weaker ones.
