








































Problems of Democracy Textbooks of the 1920s: How Well Did They Meet the Mark?  

Jessica Zaker 

Indiana University 

 

Abstract 

In 1916, a new social studies course, Problems of 

Democracy, was introduced in the US to provide an 

integrated social sciences approach and to develop informed. 

This paper examines the extent to which textbooks published 

for this curriculum reflect the goals of and discourse 

surrounding the course. Findings signify variations in the 

substance of these texts which ultimately indicates a disparity 

as to whether the purposes of the course were truly being met. 

Introduction 

In 1916, the Committee on Social Studies released a 

report recommending the reorganization of the secondary 

social studies curriculum in the United States. The 

committee—composed of professors, teachers, 

superintendents, and members of the US Bureau of 

Education—had been meeting intermittently for three years, 

developing preliminary reports, and conferring with 

representatives from organizations, such as the American 

Historical Association and the American Political Science 

Association, to determine their recommendations. In their 

introduction, the committee stated that the goal of the social 

studies is to train the individual as a member of society, with 

the purpose of cultivating good citizenship, and that this 

should be done through the development of “an appreciation 

of the nature and laws of social life, a sense of the 

responsibility of the individual as a member of social groups, 

and the intelligence and the will to participate effectively in 

the promotion of the social well-being” (Dunn, 1916, 9).  

The committee’s recommendations consisted of a 

general outline for grades seven through twelve which 

included a new course for grade twelve entitled “Problems of 

democracy—social, economic, and political” (12). The 

Problems of Democracy (PoD) course—having several other 

titles such as Social Problems and Problems of American 

Democracy—began to spread across the country. By 1926, 

twelve states had a PoD course (Brown 1926); by 1928, it was 

being offered in 890 high schools in 38 states and in 12,000 

high schools across the country by 1934 (Alilunas 1964). By 

the mid-1920s, PoD was being offered in more schools than 

medieval, world, and English history (Singleton 1980).  

Several textbooks were published during this first 

decade of the course’s existence. This paper examines these 

textbooks to determine the extent to which they mirrored the 

purposes of the course as outlined in the 1916 report as well 

as the discourse that emerged regarding the course. In 

addition, this paper examines the ways in which the course 

and curricular materials may have reflected civic education 

ideals that are still prevalent today. In conducting this 

analysis, it is apparent that, while the authors of these texts 

aligned the purposes of their works with the aims expressed 

in the 1916 report, the contents of the textbooks demonstrate 

a level of variance in substance that suggests some of the texts 

not holding up to the means they articulate as their goals.  

 

The Dawn of a New Course: The 1916 Committee Report 

The 1916 committee report referred to the PoD 

course as “the only feasible way… to satisfy in reasonable 

measure the demands of the several social sciences” (Dunn 

1916, 53). Instead of having a separate course for each of 

these various social sciences areas—sociology, economics, 

and political science—secondary schools would be able to 

cover the concepts of these fields through one course. The 

report stated that the culminating course would have the 

purpose of providing “a more definite, comprehensive, and 

deeper knowledge of some of the vital problems of social life, 

and thus of securing a more intelligent and active citizenship” 

(52).  

In terms of what problems should be studied, the 

committee suggested potential change from year to year as 

they should be selected based on their immediate interest to 

the class and importance to society. The report provides 

several examples such as cost of living and immigration. For 

the field of political science, the committee suggested a study 

of the “legislative methods of Congress and of State 

legislatures,” the “lack of uniformity in State legislation and 

its results,” and the “weakness of county government” (55). 

For sociology, the report notes problems related to “the social 

mind” and suggests the course “should afford opportunity for 

some consideration of such vital social institutions as the 

family and the church” (55). It was the committee’s judgment 

that history should not be the sole study of the secondary 

curriculum as it “has too little direct contribution to more 

intelligent participation in social life to justify a more 

continuous appearance” in the curriculum (Cox 1922, 131). 

The restructuring of the secondary social studies 

curriculum came at a time when American educators were 

reacting to problems brought on by industrialization and 

immigration and hoping to build in the next generation of 

citizens a desire to serve the common good (Evans 1989). 

World War I led educators to recognizing the importance of 

developing democratic citizenship and the study of modern 

problems as an avenue for doing so (Alilunas 1964). This 

restructuring also served to bridge the gap between the 

longtime tradition of history education and the push for 

inclusion of other social science disciplines. 

Reconstructionists and progressive educators of the time saw 

the need for the social sciences to have a place within the 

social studies curriculum (Singleton 1980) and felt this 

should be done by shifting the focus from a transfer of 



 
 

2 
 

information about the structure and function of government 

to a development of informed citizens with skills and 

information for understanding social problems and affecting 

social reform (Makler 2004). This was a clear attempt to 

move away from the disciplinary orientation, focused on 

socialization into discipline specific ways of thinking, to the 

progressive orientation which focuses instead on the 

application of knowledge to real-world problems (Fallace 

2017). 

  

Perceptions of the Problems of Democracy Course 

At the inception of the PoD course, educators shared 

perspectives regarding the purpose and design of the course 

which reflected the purposes outlined by the 1916 report. 

Hughes (1924) felt the course should broaden students’ 

sympathy of human needs and interpret the world in which 

they live. Finney (1924) believed that the purpose should be 

to explain the fundamental social institutions so that young 

people may understand more clearly how they may contribute 

to the general welfare of society. Dawson (1923) argued that 

the public secondary school had “no right, from a social 

standpoint, to send young men and women into the world 

lacking specific training in the problems of American 

democracy—the problems whose solutions will soon be in 

their hands” (407).  

Perceptions regarding flaws in the course also found 

their way into the overall discourse. Although Finney (1924) 

supported the course’s existence, he noted that the course 

should not focus on the ills of society as doing so “has a 

certain morbid effect on the minds of young persons” (527). 

Opponents of the issue-centered approach saw the course as 

too general and unorganized, resulting in a hodgepodge of 

topics (Evans 1989). Arguments regarding the overlap with 

American history and civics courses also permeated the 

conversation with some suggesting that the course should be 

eliminated or combined with existing history or civics 

courses. Some who acknowledged this overlap still saw the 

separate course as desirable as it would allow for more in-

depth study of the problems to which students were 

introduced in their history and civics courses (Dahl 1925, 

1928; Floyd 1932). 

Many of the teachers who found themselves 

teaching this new course in the early years had no formal 

training outside of the field of history (Ammarell 1932); were 

given no clear directions or training as to how to achieve the 

goals set by the new curriculum (Davenport 1939; Singleton 

1975); and were hesitant to adopt new means of organization 

(Evans 1989). The need for more structure and support may 

have been alleviated as textbooks began to be published and 

utilized at the beginning of the 1920s. Although teacher 

journals, such as Historical Outlook, feature articles 

highlighting teacher’s approaches to the course, these 

instances are sparse and are not generalizable evidence for 

what teachers and students were studying. 57% of teachers 

reported using the textbooks and their ancillary materials in 

their classroom practice (Davenport 1939). While these texts 

may not fully capture what was occurring in PoD classrooms, 

they can provide a glimpse into how teachers, especially 

those who did not feel prepared to tackle the various social 

science fields, attempted to meet the goals of the official 

curriculum. 

   

The Textbooks: How Well Did They Meet the Mark? 

Four textbooks (see table 1) were analyzed to 

determine the extent to which they met the intended purposes 

of the course as outlined by the 1916 report and reflected the 

discourse surrounding the course. As one of the major 

purposes was to develop an informed citizenry, this paper 

also explores what ideas regarding citizenship education may 

have been reflected in these materials. All four of these texts 

were published within the first decade of the course’s 

development and were reported as being used in PoD courses 

across the country (Brooks 1937; Floyd 1932). 

Table 1 

Textbook Information 

Title Author(s)  Publication  

Problems of American 

Democracy: Political, 

Economic, Social 

Henry Reed Burch 

Fellow in Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Head 

of Department of History and Commerce, West 

Philadelphia High School for Boys 

 

S. Howard Patterson 

Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, University 

of Pennsylvania 

1922 

The Macmillan Company 

Everyday Problems of 

American Democracy 

John T. Greenan 

Department of Social Sciences, East Orange High 

School, East Orange, New Jersey 

 

Albert B. Meredith 

1924 

Houghton Mifflin Company 



 
 

4 
 

Commissioner of Education for Connecticut 

Problems of American 

Democracy 

Ray Osgood Hughes 

Peabody High School, Pittsburgh/ 

 

1922 

Allyn and Bacon 

 

Problems in American 

Democracy 

Thames Ross Williamson 

Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology, Smith 

College 

1922 

D. C. Heath & Co.  

 

 

In analyzing these texts, all forewords, prefaces, and other 

introductory sections as well as the table of contents were 

examined. Several problems addressed in all four texts were 

chosen for further analysis. The sections covering these 

problems were examined, with special attention given to 

section headings and subheadings, images included, and 

ancillary materials, such as questions for review or discussion 

as well as ideas for extensions of the text study.  

From this analysis, several commonalities and 

differences became apparent regarding the purposes, content, 

and intended pedagogical approaches of these works. 

Although there are some differences in formatting, the four 

texts all clearly acknowledge the intended purposes of the 

PoD course. Major differences are apparent across the texts, 

as the materials differ greatly in their content coverage, 

ancillary materials, and intended pedagogical approaches. 

This signifies a variation in the kind of learning that would 

have been occurring in classrooms based on the text used and 

ultimately indicates a disparity as to whether the purposes of 

the course were truly being met. The remainder of this section 

highlights these aspects with examples from the texts. 

  

Purposes: Citizenship and Integrated Study at the Core 

Three of the four texts explicitly refer to the purpose 

of developing an informed citizenry and how the directed 

study of problems would help achieve such a purpose. In his 

foreword, Hughes (1922) asserts that good citizenship calls 

for an understanding of the great problems our democracy 

faces. He states that the good citizen “does not expect to be 

an expert at solving every problem; but he at least may know 

that certain important problems exist and he may establish 

sound principles on which to base his thinking with reference 

to them” (iii). Moreover, he acknowledges that this forming 

of sound principles would establish the “basis of fair and 

intelligent opinion” and that “there cannot be in the making 

of good citizens any undertaking more important than this” 

(iv). Williamson (1922) notes that it is an obligation of the 

school to prepare students to grapple with these problems 

intelligently and that, if the school fails to do so, the student 

“can only partially fulfill the obligations of citizenship” (viii). 

Greenan and Meredith (1924) address this in a preface to 

teachers, stating that training in dealing with these problems 

will “make of the pupil a more active and intelligent citizen” 

(viii). In a preface to students, which they have titled “A 

Word to Young Citizens,” the authors emphasize to their 

young readers the importance of solving problems to assist in 

the greatness of the nation, and that studying these problems 

will better prepare them to assume the responsibilities of 

citizenship (xii). These utterances demonstrate the authors’ 

attempts to hold true to the purpose of developing good 

citizenship as outlined by the 1916 committee report.  

In their introductory sections, Burch and Patterson 

(1922) do not explicitly mention citizenship, citizenry, or 

citizen nor associate any values in terms of what long-term 

goals exist in having students study this text. However, the 

authors seem to focus their intent on the integrated study of 

the social sciences. They state their text is an attempt to 

“acquaint the student with the bold outlines of the political, 

economic, and social development of American institutions” 

with the goal to stress “certain fundamental characteristics of 

our own civilization” while also preserving a “proper 

balance” between the political, economic, and social factors 

of American life (vii).  

As the course was introduced to incorporate the 

various social science fields, the authors were attempting to 

make it known that their works would serve as an 

embodiment of this blended study. In fact, the first line of 

Burch and Patterson’s preface pays homage to the “gradual 

crystallization of educational thought” that had developed in 

favor of a general study of the social sciences of which their 

“book owes its origin” (vii). Hughes notes that government 

exists to help solve social and economic problems. 

Williamson asserts that his work answered the increasing 

demand for practical training for those who “soon must 

grapple with the economic, social, and political problems of 

our own time” (vii). Greenan and Meredith state that the 

purpose of their text is to overcome the difficulty that has 

existed due to the lack of an appropriate text for teaching 

these problems. The authors provide reasoning to support 

why their texts should be considered necessary, suiting the 

needs of a growing movement that had not yet been equipped 

with the materials needed to achieve its goals. 

  

Organization: An Attempt to Reflect Purposes 

The authors seem to have organized their texts with 

the purpose of an integrated study in mind, addressing the 

various fields of social sciences and the particular economic, 

social, and political aspects of the problems they cover. 

However, in their organizational decisions, there is variance 



 
 

5 
 

in terms of how this integrated study is achieved. Some of the 

texts have the explored problems separated into distinct 

sections of the particular social science fields while others 

have blurred the lines, with problems explored via the lenses 

of the social sciences fields more holistically. For example, 

the Williamson text is organized into five distinct parts that 

indicate the separation of the different social science fields: 

Foundations of American Democracy, American Economic 

Problems, American Social Problems, American Political 

Problems, and the Mechanism of Government. The Greenan 

and Meredith text follows a similar format, with a separate 

section for political, social, and economic problems.  

Burch and Patterson state that their selected topics 

have been treated as “unified problems discussed from the 

standpoint of general social development, rather than 

subdivided into a series of separate, air-tight compartments” 

for the different social science areas (vii). The authors 

acknowledge that this text was created directly for this 

course, as they had also published what they refer to as 

companion books entitled American Economic Life and 

American Social Problems. They state that this volume 

serves as a combined treatment of the three elements to “meet 

the needs of those institutions in which opportunity is lacking 

for a detailed treatment of the social sciences individually” 

(vii). The book has forty chapters that examine a variety of 

topics, including: the evolution of the state; problems of the 

city; the American race problem; problems of organized 

labor; and the problem of poverty. While this clearly 

demonstrates that the text includes coverage of problems 

through various social science lenses, the lack of section 

headings could leave the reader—whether a student in a class 

or a novice teacher unsure of what to do for this course—

without an understanding as to how these problems relate or 

have larger consequences.  

Hughes’s text is the most complex and detailed in 

its organization, with sections based on overarching themes, 

such as Foundations; Making America Intelligent; Elevating 

American Standards; and Making America Prosperous. 

Within each section falls several subsections and then 

chapters that outline more specific topics. For example, under 

Making America Prosperous, the authors have subsections 

such as: Cooperating in Production; Distributing the Returns 

Fairly; Promoting the Public Good through Business; 

Safeguarding the Workers; and Using Wisely the Gifts of 

Nature. Each of the subsections are even further parsed out 

into chapters that are more specific in their focus. Although 

the section focuses on economic problems, there is a clear 

consideration and inclusion of the social, political, and even 

environmental issues related to the economic pursuit of 

prosperity. This more woven approach allows for a more 

blended study, potentially instilling in students that these 

social sciences fields are not mutually exclusive, that issues 

can be interrogated with knowledge from the various social 

sciences, and—possibly most importantly—that these lenses 

must all be considered for such problems to be solved.  

The organization within chapters also reflects the 

authors’ intentions. Hughes notes that topics are presented 

first by stating conditions related to the problem, then 

discussing the reasons for these conditions, and lastly by 

deciding what ought to be done about them. Williamson 

employs a causal relationship both to the substance of the 

problems as well as to the order of his text. He notes that each 

problem discussion begins with the essential nature of the 

problem, then focuses on the fundamental principles which 

affect its solution. Burch and Patterson do not explicitly 

explain their organizational decisions, but their text follows 

suit with this format, with each of their chapters being broken 

into smaller sections of text. Greenan and Meredith employ a 

different organization to their content. Each of their chapters 

center on a particular problem. For each of these stated 

problems, a single question is asked and serves as the focus 

of the chapter. For example, under “Taxation and 

Distribution of Wealth,” the authors ask, “Should the 

government prevent great extreme of wealth and poverty by 

means of income and inheritance taxes?” (xvii). The 

inclusion of these guiding questions seems to frame the 

problems in a specific context with a particular goal in mind: 

finding a solution. 

   

Content: An Issue of Scope and Sequence 

The texts cover many of the same topics, including 

crime; race; immigration; production; industry; taxation; 

labor; the family; religion; socialism; conservation; the 

structure of the government; rural life; preventing disease; 

and community planning. However, the extent to which the 

texts spend on each topic varies. Greenan and Meredith’s text 

allots roughly ten to fifteen pages for each problem discussed. 

Burch and Patterson allot an average of ten pages for each 

chapter. Hughes spends roughly 40 pages on a section 

entitled “promoting right relations among men.” In this 

section, he covers the prevention of crime, the treatment of 

the foreigner, and relations between races. Williamson, on the 

other hand, gives roughly 20 pages to the same topics and 

simplifies them. He notes in his foreword that his text aims to 

supply the basic facts and fundamental principles needed to 

discuss the included problems; this is evident not only in the 

length of sections but also the nature of the text itself. The 

subsections are short, with roughly a paragraph or two for 

each subheading, and many of the review questions are meant 

for recall of the facts provided. Another goal outlined by the 

restructuring of the secondary social studies curriculum was 

to move away from a focus solely on facts and details of a 

historical nature; however, the brief coverage of topics for 

some of these texts indicates a continued focus on facts and 

not an in-depth exploration of the issues covered.  

The ways in which the authors situate and discuss 

issues is also quite different. Hughes’s coverage of crime falls 

within the section entitled “Promoting right relations among 

men.” Within this section, he covers the topics of 

“Restraining Wrong-Doers,” “The Treatment of the 

Foreigner,” and “The Color Line.” Within these subsections, 



 
 

6 
 

he includes coverage of such topics as “Why People Do 

Wrong,” “Why the Foreigner Comes,” and “Why is there a 

Negro Problem?” Williamson’s section which could be 

considered the coverage of race relations is simply called 

“The Negro” and is roughly 20 pages in length. Burch and 

Patterson have similar headings to that of Hughes, with 

chapters entitled, “Americans—Old and New,” “The 

American Race Problem,” and “The Problem of Crime.”  

However, in the latter, their focus in the section entitled 

“Causes of crime” associates particular racial groups with 

crime, creating a biased interpretation. This is even apparent 

in the questions they include in this section, such as “What 

racial groups are conspicuous?” (477). While this language is 

representative of the societal context of the time, as 

perceptions and treatment of immigrants in the U.S. during 

the 1920s was quite negative, the biased nature of the text 

demonstrates a lack of objective coverage of societal 

problems and the push of particular ideologies. Hughes’s text 

acknowledges the ideologies that established such racial 

issues in America, yet presents this as the problem, not the 

cause; the section following that entitled “Why is there a 

Negro Problem?” is entitled “The Black Man’s Progress.” 

Depending on which text a student may be given, the way in 

which they may view the issues of immigration and race 

would be quite different and therefore problematic.  

In terms of the order of topics, Williamson outlines 

the decision to begin with a brief historical background of 

American democracy before moving into a survey of the 

economic life of the nation as this “constitutes the 

fundamental basis of our problems” (vii). He then states 

certain problems—such as industrial relations, health in 

industry, and immigration—are next considered as they come 

from bad economic situations. This then leads into economic 

and social functions of government to determine what makes 

government effective. Williamson ends his brief outline by 

stating that the mechanism of government is placed last 

because knowledge of the framework of government “is 

valuable only after the citizen knows something of the needs 

which that mechanism must be made to fill” (viii). Hughes 

argues that the PoD course “will then not be mere repetition, 

but will lead to the possession of a wider outlook upon the 

problems” (iv). It seems the authors were aware of the 

criticism that the course may be seen as overlapping with 

history and civics courses, and therefore made a point to draw 

attention to how their works would expand on or differentiate 

from that of the other social studies courses.  

However, there is clear evidence that the overlap 

with history and civics content is present, and more so in 

some texts than others. Williamson is the most demonstrative 

of this fault, as almost two hundred of the five hundred pages 

of his textbook is allotted to sections discussing the 

foundations of democracy and mechanisms of government. 

Williamson’s text does not focus as much on providing 

current information as it does historical content for discussion 

of problems. For example, within the discussion of crime and 

correction, Williamson covers the history behind law and 

justice, tracing the principles of the Magna Carta and spread 

of ideas to America via the English colonists. Burch and 

Patterson’s text also seems to focus on a historical 

progression, with sections covering topics such as the 

evolution of the state; the organization of the political 

machinery; and the growth of cities. These sections not only 

fail to counter the criticism of the course’s overlap but also 

fail to incorporate the integrated approach desired by the 

adoption of the course. 

  

Pedagogical Approach: Different Degrees of Learning 

All four texts include particular resources for each 

section or chapter. These include review and/or discussion 

questions; supplemental, reference, or required readings; and 

research questions and topics for further study. As the course 

was meant to provide students opportunities to study these 

problems in-depth, it makes sense for there to be ancillary 

materials included for both teacher and student use. This also 

indicates the pedagogical approach expected to be taken: 

students will engage in exploration of a problem, be able to 

demonstrate their understanding by answering questions, and 

potentially explore problems further via independent study 

and/or extension activities. However, the substance of these 

ancillary materials illustrates the kind of learning being 

provided for students and the pedagogical approaches 

suggested for teachers.  

Two of the texts follow what would be considered a 

more traditional approach; this is apparent in both their 

structure and the ancillary materials. Both the Burch and 

Patterson text and the Williamson text provide brief textual 

sections followed by questions meant for recall of the 

information provided. For example, the questions included in 

Williamson’s section on crime and correction include: “What 

is a crime? Summarize the remedies of crime. What is the 

function of the probation system?” (203). While these are 

questions related to the problem at hand, they do not ask the 

student to extend outside of the textual information provided 

in the section of the textbook. Burch and Patterson’s section 

on crime included similar questions intended for recall 

purposes. Moreover, the questions provided for additional 

required readings also are of a recall nature, including: “What 

are the first steps in a criminal action? What is an 

indictment?” (204). These questions do not allow for the 

students to consider the purposes behind the correction 

system nor they do require the students to truly evaluate the 

nature of a problem nor determine potential remedies. Burch 

and Patterson’s text includes some questions that ask students 

to examine causal relationships, such as “Show how defects 

in government and political corruption increase crime” (477). 

However, as exhibited in the Williamson text as well, the 

number of questions that serve the purposes of recall and 

definition strongly outweighs that of questions for deeper 

exploration, evaluation, or discussion.  

The structures of the other two texts indicate the 

potential for more intricate and purposeful study. Greenan 

and Meredith utilize a case method approach of teaching in 



 
 

7 
 

their text format by focusing each chapter on a particular 

issue and centering it around a question for exploration. 

These focus questions are deliberative in nature, usually 

phrased in a way that indicates students could take a side in 

their response; most questions begin with terms such as 

“should,” “shall,” or “can.” Following the posed question, 

each chapter includes background information and separate 

sections providing support for the opposing stances for the 

question. Some of the guiding questions are more direct in 

their purpose. For example, for the chapter entitled “City 

Government,” the question is “Is the commission plan the 

best form of government for all American cities?” (40). For a 

chapter entitled, “The Liquor Question,” the guiding question 

is, “Shall we modify our prohibition laws so as to legalize the 

sale of light wines and beer?” (249).  

Not only are these questions written in a way that 

indicates a goal of taking a stance, they are also clearly 

indicative of relevant policy issues of the time; several 

chapters discuss specific policies and organizations. For 

example, the chapter on transportation asks students to 

consider the adoption of the Plumb plan of government 

ownership of interstate railroads. Other questions employ 

more of an ethical or moral approach to societal issues. This 

is evident in chapters such as that entitled “Political Parties 

and Elections” where the focus question is “Do political 

parties result in more harm than good?” and “The Importance 

of the Family and the Church,” with the question, “Is the 

American family life more wholesome than at any previous 

time in the history of our country?” While these guiding 

questions can be answered with a yes or no response, the 

content of the chapters is meant to arouse particular support 

for whichever answer students choose. This is indicative of a 

learning objective whereby students arrive at informed 

opinions, which directly mirrors that of the 1916 report’s goal 

of developing an informed citizenry.  

At first glance, the Hughes text seems to indicate a 

more traditional approach in line with that of Burch and 

Patterson and Williamson. However, the layout he employs 

demonstrates a more complex approach and one more in line 

with that of Greenan and Meredith. While the chapters 

include a more traditional structure of informative text under 

various subheadings, Hughes has embedded the review and 

discussion questions into the text, breaking up the sections of 

informative text. Moreover, many of the questions directly 

acknowledge the reader in their phrasing. These structural 

decisions create a more conversational tone and elicit the 

reader’s stances on issues, which aligns Hughes’s text more 

with the approach of Greenan and Meredith. Not only does 

the embedded nature of the questions indicate the potential 

for this more conversational approach, the questions 

themselves also point to the potential for discussion and 

deliberation. For example, the section discussing 

immigration includes questions such as: “Should we expect 

the immigrant to give as much to America as America gives 

him? Would you advise sending back to Europe all aliens still 

unnaturalized after being in this country ten years? Are 

immigration laws likely to form a party issue here? Should 

they?” (133-135). A teacher utilizing this text even in direct 

instruction would be poised to stop and ask the questions to 

the class, allowing for students’ opinions to be expressed and, 

potentially, for a more in-depth discussion or even 

deliberation to occur. 

  

Examining a Problem: Analyzing Content for Adequate 

Substance 

To more fully examine the substance of these texts, 

their coverage of the topic of education was analyzed. The 

following aspects were considered in this analysis: 

  

1) To what extent does the text provide an in-depth 

and integrated exploration of the problem?  

2) What do the ancillary questions require of the 

students? Are they asking students to simply recite 

information from the text or use the information for 

applicable and evaluative means? 

 

Hughes’s examines education within a section 

entitled “Making America Intelligent,” which houses the 

subsections, “Providing education through public support” 

and “Promoting education through private enterprise.” Under 

these umbrella topics are even more specific aspects for the 

discussion of the problem, including: “What is education,” 

“Why we need public schools,” “How schools are 

supported,” and “Are private schools desirable?” Although it 

seems helpful to have the sections so clearly broken down, 

each aspect of the subsections is given roughly two pages of 

coverage. While at first this may seem like inadequate 

coverage, Hughes seems to meet his intentions of providing 

a wider overview of the problem over an in-depth historical 

study. The section also includes a variety of sources such as 

images and charts to be included in the study. One such image 

is a chart from Oakland School district, demonstrating the 

national spending put towards education versus other things, 

such as “sundaes, sodas, and Drinking Fountain Delights,” 

lotions and other cosmetic products. The chart also expresses 

that Oakland schools use less than two-fifths of the city’s 

taxes. The caption included by Hughes states, “How One City 

Appealed for Public Support for its Schools. The facts given 

in this appeal are worth careful consideration” (37). 

Concluding a section entitled, “What Shall We 

Teach?”, Hughes asks the following questions: “Should a 

commercial student take only commercial subjects? Is there 

any cultural value in typewriting and shorthand? What 

particular values are offered by the various subjects usually 

available in the high school?” (43). For discussion of public 

versus private schools, Hughes includes the question, “What 

kinds of people would probably provide for their children’s 

education if there were no public schools?” (26). Coverage of 

state school systems is followed by the questions, “What do 

you think of the idea of having the same textbook in all the 

schools of a state? Is there any advantage in having the states 

control the granting of teachers’ certificates?” (31). The 



 
 

8 
 

conclusion of the section has the following questions: “Can 

you think of other educational factors than those mentioned 

in this chapter? Has a person the moral right to neglect any 

reasonable opportunity for self-employment?” (67). Prior to 

the list of special studies and reference readings for further 

study, the section ends with a notice in bold font:  

 

There are few cases of really excusable ignorance in 

the United States. If a person honestly yearns for 

learning and enlightenment, he has many 

opportunities to obtain it. If America is not made 

intelligent, it will be the fault of her citizens 

themselves. (67) 

 

The topics covered in Hughes’s text reflect an integration of 

economic, social, and political study and are supported with 

questions that require application and evaluation of real-

world substance rather than simply recall. Questions of moral 

or ethical nature are present in Hughes’s text as well, as 

evidenced by questions like, “Does one have a right to be 

ignorant if he wishes? Who are worse, the ignorant or the 

prejudiced? Will an intelligent democracy make mistakes? 

(24). There seems to be an implicit message being 

communicated regarding the importance of education and 

both the structure and substance of the text allows for 

students to examine an array of issues revolving education.  

  Greenan and Meredith’s chapter on education 

centers on the following question: “Shall we establish a 

National Department of Education with a secretary a member 

of the President’s cabinet?” (xv). The chapter begins with a 

section entitled “The Importance of Education” which 

includes topics such as the aims of public education, the 

necessity of public education, raising school funds, and 

federal appropriations for education. The remainder of this 

section highlights evidence, offering specific statistical data 

as well as possible solutions, to support the opposing sides of 

the problem stated in the focus question. The review 

questions posed for the section include: “To what extent does 

education determine the future earning capacity of an 

individual? Prove that a poor educational system in one state 

is a menace to the whole nation. Where is the money obtained 

to support education? Give five arguments for and five 

against the Towner-Sterling Bill” (110).  

While the structure of the Greenan and Meredith 

text allows for students to examine a particular question 

related to the problem—utilizing the case method they 

expressed as their focus in their introduction—the review 

questions seem to serve a variety of purposes. Some of the 

questions are more recall-oriented while others are 

evaluative. Nonetheless, the chapter presents modern 

information related to education with the hopes that students 

can determine an answer to the outlined focus question. 

Moreover, the subtopics and discussion around the question 

require the student to consider social, economic, and political 

evidence to support their reasoning, helping to build an 

integrated approach to answering the problem at hand.  

Williamson’s section on education includes 

subtopics such as: the meaning of education, development of 

education in the United States, financing the schools, and 

education and social progress. While at first glance, these 

topics seem to align with those of the previous two texts; 

however, the extent to which the topics cover modern issues, 

statistical data, and depth of questions is scant. The questions 

in this section include: “Trace briefly the development of 

education in this country. What problem arises in connection 

with financing the schools? Discuss the purpose of vocational 

education” (264). These questions can be answered by study 

and recitation of the textual information.  

Burch and Patterson follow a similar mold, focusing 

on topics such as the development of the national school 

systems, which provides a thorough coverage of the history 

of the development in Europe and the United States as well 

as the scientific movement, the development of vocational 

training and industrial education. The section lacks statistical 

information, modern examples, or sources for deeper study. 

The “Questions for Discussion” section at the conclusion of 

the chapter includes questions like, “Discuss education in 

colonial America” and “Discuss the industrial education and 

the continuation schools of Germany” (557-558). The topics 

and the questions that follow do not require the students to 

evaluate their own educational systems nor consider modern 

problems associated with education. 

  

Discussion 

The four texts analyzed in this study exhibited some 

similarities that are imperative to note. The authors of these 

texts used explicit language that reflected the purposes 

outlined in the 1916 report, organized their texts to address 

the various social sciences, and covered what could be 

considered the issues or problems that were reflective of and 

reflected in society at the time of their publication. However, 

the variances noted in this analysis regarding the substance 

and approaches of these texts are critical and provide a 

different picture. The kind of learning that was occurring in a 

PoD classroom, and the extent to which the goals of the 1916 

report were being met, may have greatly depended on and 

differed by what textbook the teacher may have been using.  

The texts written by Hughes and Greenan and 

Meredith seem to adequately provide students with 

information that connects to the social science fields, ask 

questions that will illuminate the problems related to the 

topics at hand, and employ pedagogical approaches that allow 

for more in-depth exploration, discussion, and even 

deliberation. However, the texts written by Williamson and 

Burch and Patterson provide more straightforward, 

traditional approaches to the study of included problems and 

ask students questions that mostly focus on recalling 

information and defining terms. These texts also fall in line 

with some of the major critiques of the course, as they have 

overt overlaps with history and civics content.  

Another important consideration that is illuminated 

from these findings is what kind of citizen was being 



 
 

9 
 

developed via the texts examined. The textbooks can be 

considered as falling in various places along Westheimer and 

Kahne’s (2004) typology of the three types of citizens: the 

personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented 

citizen. While the textbooks were published roughly 80 years 

prior to the development of this typology, the approach to 

citizenship education present mostly aligns with developing 

personally responsible and participatory citizens. The 

Greenan and Meredith text, with questions of moral and 

ethical nature, could be seen as teetering into developing the 

justice-oriented citizen. The Hughes text is the most 

progressive in this realm, not only by including moral and 

ethical questions but also by touching on topics that could be 

considered justice-oriented, such as having students examine 

inequities in societal systems. 

These latter two texts also could be considered 

falling closer along the lines of what Parker (2001) refers to 

as enlightened political engagement. His typology of 

curricular approaches to democratic citizenship education 

extends from transmission to participatory and from non-

critical to critical. The Williamson and Burch and Patterson 

texts fall closer on the spectrum to transmission while 

Greenan and Meredith and Hughes could be considered more 

participatory and critical. If the goal of the PoD course was 

to prepare future citizens who will tackle the problems of 

tomorrow, it could be argued that the goal was not fully met, 

as the development of different kinds of citizens, with 

different approaches for tackling said problems, was the 

outcome.  

While the textbooks discussed in this paper all 

claimed to meet the needs of the course—by illuminating the 

problems related to social, economic, and political aspects of 

life, for the sake of preparing informed citizens who would 

be the members of society solving them in the future —the 

texts varied in scope, sequence, and substance. The findings 

of this analysis are not only revealing of the potential learning 

that occurred over a century ago but also the importance of 

aligning curricular goals and materials. The bridge between 

the perspectives of those with revisionist ideas for education 

and the materials created for practical use is one that must be 

better aligned in future innovations in education. The 

necessities of viewing curricular materials with a critical lens 

and ensuring they are meeting the intended goals of the 

curriculum are vital 

.  

Conclusion 

 While the PoD course was one built out of 

determined needs for US society, value-laden with 

democratic and reconstructionist ideals, the reality of what 

was happening in classrooms may have not mirrored such. 

Three interrelated factors seemed to directly affect the course 

during this early period: 1) philosophical differences 

regarding the purpose and place of the course; 2) a lack of 

standardization; and 3) a lack of teacher training (Singleton 

1975). The variance in substance of the curricular materials 

reflects the lack of standardization and should also be 

considered a potential factor of the course’s success. While 

the course remained in schools into the 1970s, the number of 

students taking the course dwindled (Singleton 1975). The 

difficulties the course faced during its inception may have 

contributed to its disappearance as it struggled to determine 

its identity, place, and structure throughout its existence.  

The purposes outlined by the 1916 report of the 

Committee of Social Studies should not be ignored, as they 

still ring true today. History continues to be the overarching 

focus of social studies secondary curriculum in the United 

States. The focus on transfer of information continues to be a 

prevalent issue. A curriculum that employs a more integrated 

social studies approach, places discussion and deliberation at 

its center, and focuses on the preparation of an informed 

citizenry continues to be advocated for by social studies 

scholars today. However, for these goals to be reached, any 

new curricular materials must be crafted intentionally to 

reflect such goals, and with explicit ideas for implementation 

to assist those who are teaching such content. Only then will 

they have the means needed to successfully meet the purposes 

and goals of such an approach 

. 

References 

Alilunas, Leo J. 1964. “Whither the Problems of Democracy 

Course?” Social Education 28, no. 1 (January): 11-14.  

Ammarell, Raymond R. 1932. “Teaching Problems of 

Democracy in High Schools.” Education 52 (May): 532-

535.  

Burch, Henry Reed, and Samuel Howard Patterson. 1922. 

Problems of American Democracy: Political, Economic, 

and Social. New York: Macmillan.  

Brooks, Helen Rhoda. 1937. “Student Preferences in 

Problems of Democracy.” Harvard Educational Review 

7, no. 2 (March): 215-223.  

Brown, Milton Wright. 1926. “An Analysis of State Courses 

of Study for the Social Studies.” Dissertation, University 

of Chicago.  

Cox, Philip W. L. 1922. “Social Studies in the Secondary 

School Curriculum.” National Association of Secondary 

School Principals Sixth Yearbook: 126-132.  

Dahl, Edwin J. 1925. “One Method of Teaching Problems of 

American Democracy.” Historical Outlook 16, no. 1 

(January): 13–18. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/21552983.1925.9957543. 

Dahl, Edwin J. 1928. “The Overlapping of Content Material 

in Senior High School Social Science Textbooks.” 

Historical Outlook 19 (2): 80-87. 

Davenport, Jr., Stanley I. 1939. “The Teaching of Problems 

of Democracy.” The Social Studies 30, no. 2 (February): 

64–68. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1935.11016350. 

Dawson, Edgar, and Bureau of Education (ED) Department 

of the Interior. 1923. “The Social Studies in Civic 

Education. Bulletin, 1923, No. 23.” Bureau of 

Education, Department of the Interior 23, January.  



 
 

10 
 

Dunn, Arthur William, and Bureau of Education (ED) 

Department of the Interior. 1916. “The Social Studies in 

Secondary Education: A Six-Year Program Adapted 

Both to the 6-3-3 and the 8-4 Plans of Organization. 

Report of the Committee on Social Studies of the 

Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary 

Education of the National Education Association. 

Bulletin, 1916, No. 28.” Bureau of Education, 

Department of the Interior, January. US Government 

Printing Office, 1916. 

Evans, Ronald W. 1989. “A Dream Unrealized: A Brief Look 

at the History of Issue-Centered Approaches.” The 

Social Studies 80 (5): 178–84. https://doi.org/10.1080 

/00377996.1989.9957474. 

Fallace, Thomas. 2017. “The Intellectual History of the 

Social Studies.” In The Wiley Handbook of Social 

Studies Research, edited by Meghan McGlinn Manfra 

and Cheryl Mason Bolick, 42-67. Malden, MA: Wiley-

Blackwell.   

Finney, Ross L. 1924. “What Do We Mean by “Community 

Civics” and “Problems of Democracy”?” The School 

Review 32, no. 7 (September): 521-528. 

Floyd, Oliver R. 1932. “Overlapping between the Senior 

High School Courses in Problems of Democracy and 

American History.” Historical Outlook 23, no. 6 

(October): 296–302. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/21552983.1932.9958492. 

Gambrill, J. Montgomery. 1924. "Tendencies and Issues in 

the Making of Social Studies Curricula." Social 

Studies 15, no. 2 (February): 84-89. 

Greenan, John Thomas, and Albert Barrett Meredith. 

Everyday Problems of American Democracy. Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Company.  

Hughes, Ray Osgood. 1922. Problems of American 

Democracy. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Hughes, Ray Osgood. 1924. “The Twelfth Grade Course in 

Problems of Democracy.” Historical Outlook 15 no. 5 

(May): 206-209. 

Makler, Andra. 2004. “‘Problems of Democracy’ and the 

Social Studies Curriculum during the Long Armistice.” 

In Social Education in the Twentieth Century: 

Curriculum and Context for Citizenship, edited by 

Christine A. Woyshner, Joseph Watras, and Margaret 

Smith Crocco, 20-42. New York: Peter Lang.  

Parker, Walter C. 2001. “Toward Enlightened Political 

Engagement.” In Critical Issues in Social Studies 

Research for the 21st Century, edited by William B. 

Stanley, 97-118. Greenwich, CT: Information Age 

Publishing.  

Singleton, Henry Wells. 1975. “Factors Affecting the 

Development of the Problems of Democracy Course.” 

Dissertation, Stanford University.  

Singleton, Henry Wells. 1980. “Problems of Democracy: The 

Revisionist Plan for Social Studies Education.” Theory 

& Research in Social Education 8, no. 3 (Fall): 89–104.  

Westheimer, Joel, and Joseph Kahne. 2004. “What Kind of 

Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy.” 

American Education Research Journal 41, no. 2 

(Summer): 237-269.  

Williamson, Thames Ross. 1922. Problems of American 

Democracy. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. 

https://doi.org/10.1080

