









































Unraveling Conflicting Interpretations of the 1916 Report on Social Studies 
 

Gregg Jorgensen 
Western Illinois University 

 
Abstract  

This article explores the numerous, 
divergent interpretations of the 1916 Report on 
Social Studies.  Upon close examination of the 
trilogy of reports and the various interpretations, 
it argues that the 1916 Committee as a group 
overcame the multiple influences of social 
movements and critical issues of the era by 
directly applying John Dewey’s educational 
philosophy and principles in the final 
recommendations for social studies to a degree 
not yet recognized by contemporary scholars.   
 
Introduction 
 Over time scholars have developed a 
number of divergent interpretations of the 1916 
Report on Social Studies.  My goal in this article 
is to unravel these conflicting interpretations.  For 
instance, Fallace (2009) recently stated that the 
1916 Report on Social Studies was simply a 
“Dewey-inspired document” while at the same 
time he expressed his belief that the ideas in the 
Report “did not originate with Dewey” (p. 618).  
On the other hand, Ravitch (2000) argued that the 
newly created social studies of 1916 revolved 
around a notion of social efficiency defined as 
“teaching students the skills and attitudes 
necessary to fit into the new social order” (p. 
127).  Close examination of the Report and the 
differing interpretations reveals an underlying 
question:  Which scholarly interpretation most 
accurately captures and explains the intent, goals, 
purposes, and influences on the 1916 Committee?  
Pursuing the answer matters because our 
definition for social studies may hang in the 
balance along with our beliefs about a preferred 
future for the field. 

 The answer to this question runs contrary 
to the beliefs of some contemporary scholars.  
That is, the 1916 Report on Social Studies may 
not be merely Deweyan or social efficiency 
inspired.  In fact, over their tenure, the 1916 
Committee may have cohesively combined a 
unique blend of philosophical views and concerns 
that was representative of multiple ideological 
camps that struggled over the American 
curriculum during the early part of the 20th 
century and beyond.  My path to this belief 
started with the recognition that the 1916 Report 
on Social Studies is a trilogy of three separate 
reports.  Moreover, it may be that only the third 
and final report, commonly known as the 1916 
Report on Social Studies, was consistent with the 
intent and the defining principles that were 
promoted by the entire membership of the 1916 
Committee that I believe directly embraced 
Dewey’s educational philosophy. 
 
The Three Reports 

In reviewing the three documents that 
comprise the trilogy of reports that is commonly 
known as the 1916 Report on Social Studies, each 
report is indeed a separate and distinct document 
published at different times over a three-year 
period.    It is important to recognize this 
distinction.  Contemporary scholars tend to 
analyze these three reports as one package under 
the singular title of the 1916 Report on Social 
Studies.  However, when each of the three reports 
is treated as a stand-alone document, each is 
unique.  The differentiation in the three reports 
stems from the individual composition of the 
committee membership involved in the 
production of each report. 



83 
 

 The 1916 Committee was one of a total of 
10 subject committees formed in 1912-1913 
under the umbrella of the Commission for the 
Reorganization of Secondary Education.  As 
such, this Committee was charged with 
identifying social studies as a course of study and 
defining social studies as an entity for education.  
Indeed the 1916 Committee was assigned the sole 
purpose of developing formal recommendations 
for the creation and establishment of social 
studies as a subject for secondary education.  
However, unlike the case in the earlier social 
studies reports, the full complement of 21 
educators and educational administrators 
nominated to serve on the 1916 Committee sat in 
place to issue the third and final report in the 
trilogy of reports.  The first two reports in 1913 
and 1915, respectively, were the products of two 
separate, specifically limited membership sub-
groups.  The differences in the membership 
delegated to issue the three individual reports to 
the CRSE as well as the timing of each report 
ultimately published under the social studies 
subject committee becomes acutely important.  
This distinction aids in reaching an understanding 
of the 1916 Committee’s final recommendations 
for social studies issued to and accepted by the 
CRSE as the 1916 Report on Social Studies—the 
third report published in 1916. 
 Before proceeding further with this 
argument, it will be helpful to provide a brief 
description of each report.  First, the 1913 
Preliminary Statement lists Thomas Jesse Jones 
as its author.  However, it was not written in its 
entirety either by the appointed chairman, 
Thomas Jesse Jones, or by the entire group that 
was to become known as the 1916 Committee.  
Instead, it represents a package of original text 
statements provided by four noted individual 
1916 Committee members—J. Lynn Barnard, 
William A. Wheatley, James Harvey Robinson, 

and Henry R. Burch—compiled by Jones as the 
chairman along with his own statements.  Each of 
the contributing members presented their 
preliminary thoughts on four different social 
studies subjects.  The first report is a preliminary 
statement issued in the same vein and at the same 
time as the preliminary statements from the other 
subject committees of the Commission on the 
Reorganization of Secondary Education (CRSE).  

Second, the 1915 Report on Community 
Civics was intended to be a special study of one 
subject from the several social studies subjects.  
This report was limited in scope to the subject of 
community civics.  It is a written summary of a 
study conducted by a small, specifically 
appointed special committee of four members 
consisting of one existing and three future 1916 
Committee members—J. Lynn Barnard, F. W. 
Carrier, Arthur W. Dunn, and Clarence D. 
Kingsley.  Their report: (a) presented detailed 
examples of approaches for the teaching of 
community civics, and, (b) emphasized the 
importance of this subject in the curriculum to 
that era of expansive population growth due to the 
influx of immigrants.  It was published as a stand-
alone report, upon CRSE approval in 1915, to 
serve as an aid to teachers nationwide.   

Third, the 1916 Report on Social Studies 
was designed, prepared, and finalized by the 
entire 1916 Committee.  It presents the 1916 
Committee’s overall recommendations for the 
teaching and learning of the newly created social 
studies in secondary education.  The third and 
final report is the only report that fully addressed 
the charge for the 1916 Committee from the 
CRSE.  Ultimately, this was accomplished by 
presenting the educational philosophy and 
principles of Dewey with those of the established 
ideological camps of the era.   

Thus, the full 1916 Committee, as one 
cohesive group coming from diverse 



84 
 

backgrounds, reached a revamped and common 
philosophy that was much more Deweyan in its 
approach to the teaching and learning of social 
studies in the third and final report than was 
evident in the first or second reports.  The 1916 
Committee clearly stated at the outset of the third 
report that a new definition, perspective, and 
approach was needed in order to formulate their 
recommendations.  One significant reason 
stemmed from the 1916 Committee’s rationale 
that social studies was uniquely different as a 
subject among all the other subjects assigned to 
the various CRSE committees.  The 1916 
Committee stated:  “The social studies are 
understood to be those whose subject matter 
relates directly to the organization and 
development of human society, and to man as a 
member of social groups.”  As a result, the 1916 
Committee argued: “from the nature of their 
content, social studies affords peculiar 
opportunities for the training of the individual as 
a member of society” (U.S. Bureau of Education, 
1916, p. 9).   
 The operational philosophy for the 
Committee’s recommendations resulted from a 
combination of multiple personal and 
philosophical influences that embedded elements 
of social efficiency, social meliorism, social 
reconstructionism, humanism and 
developmentalism in the third and final report.  
Their carefully crafted recommendations for the 
future of social studies encompassed principles 
grounded by a concerted intent to develop over 
the students’ successive school years a higher 
order of thinking to meet their interests and to 
increase their content knowledge base.  This 
combined approach would allow them to more 
completely fulfill their lives in the community.  
The Report was not a “how to” primer.  Instead 
the 1916 Committee provided a principle-based 
framework.  They challenged teachers to adapt 

new principles designed for the teaching and 
learning of the newly created, unique subject of 
social studies.  The foundation for their 
recommendations solidly rested in Dewey’s three-
prong approach to first start with a problem or 
topic of interest carefully identified that would 
meet the student’s interest as well as represent a 
topic or problem that be of significance to society. 
The ideological spectrum which enveloped the 
1916 Committee can be considered the platform 
for their educational philosophy and pedagogy 
which originated from and evolved under a strong 
influence from John Dewey, directly and 
indirectly.  Several scholars have published direct 
statements on Dewey’s strong influence on the 
1916 Committee.  Saxe (1991) stated: “Most, if 
not all, the selected philosophical points that 
appeared in the report were specifically drawn 
from his writings” (p. 168).  In addition, Evans 
(2004) stated: “Probably the single most 
important influence on the committee was John 
Dewey” (p. 22).  John Dewey’s influence became 
part of an intentional design that acted as an 
overlay and counterforce to the numerous other 
individual and societal influences that impacted 
the 1916 Committee.  Dewey’s influence was 
therefore much more substantively direct, as well 
as indirect, than simply to provide the 1916 
Committee with “credence and coherence” (p. 
618) as Fallace (2009) suggests. 
 
Context 
 Undoubtedly, the 1916 Committee was 
confronted by numerous concepts advocated by 
influential interest groups during their era.  These 
social concepts represent issues that impacted 
each of the three separate reports to varying 
degrees.  It becomes important to note that the 
spectrum of  ideologies—social efficiency, social 
meliorism, social reconstructionism, humanism, 
and developmentalism—influencing the 1916 



85 
 

Committee was driven by concern over 
significant societal changes in the United States 
and other areas of the globe prior to and 
throughout the 1916 Committee’s tenure.  The 
number of societal reactions to unforeseen 
challenges can be viewed as both an extremely 
varied and a frenetic response to immigrants 
literally flowing into the country, expanding 
urbanization, industrialization and the resulting 
transformation of American institutions, as well 
as impending war.  The multiple interest group 
movements were developed by society in what 
might be described as a coping mechanism.  In 
particular, citizens were facing significant 
problems that were by-products of the rapid 
industrialization, wealth concentration, and 
industry’s ruthless exploitation of natural 
resources.  Coupled with inefficiency and 
corruption in government at all levels and the 
incredible growth that added to the already 
increasing complexity of political and social 
problems in urban areas was a growing fear that 
the American middle class would adversely react 
to these intense problems (Kliebard, 2004; 
Callahan, 1962).  Both as individuals and as an 
educational work group, the 1916 Committee 
shared many of the same deep concerns as these 
various groups.   
 A major factor during this era was that 
industry was under increasing pressure to counter 
Germany’s industrial success.  The industrialists 
were thrust into quick action to move the United 
States into the top competitive position in the 
world in industrial development and expansion 
(Kliebard, 2004).  Growth in industry precipitated 
growth in urban populations as citizens migrated 
from rural areas in search of new jobs.  In tandem 
with this impact was the increasing tendency for 
the African American population, also seeking a 
new life and a new way of making a living, to 
migrate from the south to the industrial northern 

cities.  Growth in cities was further exacerbated 
by the tremendous impact of immigrants from 
countries in southern and eastern Europe.  The 
immigrant population created widespread concern 
among many about methods of Americanizing 
this massive influx of people in order to address 
fear of their different cultures and beliefs.  The 
population changes caused by citizen migration 
and immigration from foreign countries created a 
concern to provide “youth with the skills that 
were required by industry and commerce” 
(Kliebard, 2004, p. 130).  The United States, as a 
nation, was tremendously affected by both the 
immigration and migration population 
movements (Kliebard, 2004; Cremin, 1961). 

 At the same time, the threat of entering 
into the war in Europe loomed overhead.  The 
steps needed to prepare for a world war became a 
concern for government, industry and business, as 
well as private citizens over an extended time 
frame.  The United States did not enter World 
War I until 1917.  This was after the 1916 
Committee concluded its work and published 
their recommendations.  However, the pending 
war almost certainly represented an impact on 
their educational planning.   

Thus, immigration, urbanization, 
industrialization, and the threat of war were the 
modern problems of the era.  Educational leaders 
wanted the schools to step in and help address 
these significant issues while at the same time 
helping to keep, in general, the status quo of 
liberal capitalist democracy (Evans, 2004). As a 
result, the 1916 Committee was confronted with 
critical social problems emanating from the 
rapidly changing social, political, and industrial 
environment of their era. 

 
 
 



86 
 

Effects of Influence 
 From different vantage points, the societal 
influence groups of the era, that is, social 
efficiency advocates strongly entrenched in the 
steel and railroad industries as well as the 
National Municipal League’s chapters;  social 
meliorists exemplified by the likes of Lester 
Frank Ward; social reconstructionists who were 
influenced by positions that would soon be 
championed by Harold Rugg; humanists looked 
to leadership from those who supported tenets of 
western education; while developmentalists 
followed G. Stanley Hall.   These interest groups 
addressed the various critical problems of a 
society that was changing at a rapid pace.  How 
influential were these groups on the 1916 
Committee?  Indeed, what constitutes influence?  
Influence is not limited to a linear cause and 
effect hierarchy.  Versions of influence can be 
generated from peers, mentors, leaders, political 
representatives, and interest groups of all types.  
It seems reasonable to speculate that any 
individual or group subjected to outside 
influences potentially affecting their beliefs might 
be swayed in one direction or another.  A key 
question to address is:  Does a single influence, or 
a selection of multiple influences, provide value 
and a positive effect on projected outcomes?  The 
challenge for educational historians is to 
determine which, if any, particular leader, interest 
group, peer, colleague, or governmental entity 
influenced the 1916 Committee’s deliberations 
and ultimately their recommendations in the 1916 
Report on Social Studies. 

For instance, a theme of connectivity has 
been used by some scholars to trace the academic 
background of Clarence D. Kingsley, Thomas 
Jesse Jones, W. A. Arey, Arthur W. Dunn and S. 
B. Howe to sociologists Franklin H. Giddings, 
George Vincent, and Albion Small (Lybarger, 
1981; Nelson, 1994).  All these identified 1916 

Committee members, except Dunn, studied under 
Giddings at Columbia.  Dunn was a student of 
both Vincent and Small at the University of 
Chicago.  Dewey was also influenced by Vincent 
and Small (Cremin, 1961). The more influential 
Jones, Kingsley and Dunn—leaving out Aery and 
Howe—are thought to lend a sociological outlook 
to the 1916 Committee.  Nevertheless, the 1916 
Committee looked favorably to Robinson and his 
views of the new history.  Robinson wanted the 
1916 Committee to rethink, reexamine, 
experiment, and utilize their collective initiative 
to be able to develop the newly created social 
studies (Saxe, 1991). 
 A critical question to pose regarding the 
1916 Committee’s work is:  How influential were 
Thomas Jesse Jones, as Chairman, and Clarence 
D. Kingsley, as both overseer of the CRSE and a 
1916 Committee member, in preparing the reports 
of the 1916 Committee?  A follow-up question 
becomes what other 1916 Committee members 
may have had a significant influence on their 
deliberations?  The ultimate question then 
becomes which 1916 Committee members most 
influenced their final recommendations for social 
studies in secondary education?  In addition, what 
about the influence of Dewey as a non-member? 
 The 1916 Committee members strived to 
create a final document that was both practical 
and flexible—one that would become a tool for 
teachers (Evans, 2004).  As a group, these 
developers of the newly created social studies 
gave a voice and an emphasis to many issues of 
concern that had been arising from the various 
social reform movements for decades prior to the 
work of the 1916 Committee.  It is unfortunate 
that no known notes or records of the 1916 
Committee members’ discussions or deliberations 
exist to reveal more personalized insight to their 
actions and interactions. 



87 
 

 Thus, speculation on various types of 
potential influence may partially explain why the 
1916 Report on Social Studies has suffered from 
numerous interpretations over time.  The variety 
of interpretations may have exacerbated a 
commonly expressed belief that the 1916 Report 
on Social Studies is, at best, inconsistent.   Thus, 
while considered seminal in social studies 
education, it is not understood in a uniform 
manner among scholars. 
 
Schools of Interpretation 
 For this article the work of nineteen 
scholars who have written interpretations of the 
1916 Report on Social Studies or the societal 
conditions that influenced the 1916 Committee’s 
thoughts were identified and analyzed.  These 
scholars were then placed in appropriate schools 
of interpretation relative to their view of the 1916 
Report on Social Studies and the social impacts of 
the era.  The schools of interpretation I have 
identified include:  celebratory historians, 
revisionist interpretations (social efficiency, 
Dewey and Robinson school, multiple influences, 
neoconservatives), and post-revisionists.  First, 
the celebratory historians school of interpretation 
(Tryon, 1935; Wesley, 1937) held that each and 
every development in education represented 
progress.  In turn, the 1916 Report on Social 
Studies—the document that created the new 
subject of social studies—was, in their opinion, 
considered the cornerstone of progress in social 
studies education.  In addition, they believed the 
subject of history was the primary avenue to find 
solutions to current problems and to prevent 
repetition of past mistakes.   
 Second, several revisionist interpretations 
have been identified in this study.  The four 
separate revisionist interpretations are:  social 
efficiency, the Dewey and Robinson school of 
interpretation, multiple influences, and the 

neoconservative revisionists.  No significance is 
attached to the sequence of these interpretations.  
Each revisionist interpretation stands on its own.  
Within the social efficiency school of 
interpretation (Callahan, 1962; Krug, 1964; 
Lybarger, 1981, 1983, 1987; Kliebard, 1994, 
2004), one prominent group of curriculum 
historians, some based at the University of 
Wisconsin’s consortium of educators, has argued 
that principles of efficiency, centralization, and 
decision-making were significant influences at the 
time of the 1916 Committee.  Indeed, some have 
specifically indicated that the 1916 Report on 
Social Studies itself represented a social 
efficiency oriented point of view.    
 Another group of curriculum historians 
identified under the Dewey and Robinson school 
of interpretation (Hendricks, 1946; Saxe, 1991; 
Correia, 1994; Evans, 2004) have argued that the 
influence of John Dewey and James Harvey 
Robinson should not be overlooked in the 1916 
Report on Social Studies.  They argue that 
Dewey’s principles of education and Robinson’s 
concept of new history are very prevalent in the 
Report.   
 Yet another group of educational 
historians has argued that multiple influences 
(Cremin, 1961; Jenness, 1990; Whelan, 1991, 
1993, 1997a, 1997b, 2006; Nelson, 1994; Fallace, 
2009) were swirling around the 1916 Committee.  
These scholars embrace a spectrum of ideas not 
necessarily held in a prioritized sequence.  They 
focus upon social efficiency and other social 
movement ideas of the 1916 era, Dewey’s ideals, 
and Robinson’s new history.   
 The final revisionist school of 
interpretation, the neoconservatives (Ravitch, 
1978, 1985, 1989a, 1989b, 2000; Hertzberg, 
1981, 1989), consists of historians who question 
the value and validity of interdisciplinary or 
progressive social studies.  They argue that the 



88 
 

1916 Report on Social Studies undermined and 
adversely affected the teaching of traditional 
history.  The neoconservatives believe that social 
studies is not useful, promotes social efficiency, 
and is utilitarian.   
 Third, other historians, the post-
revisionists (Westbrook, 1991; Tyack and Cuban, 
1995), have done related work.  Although they 
have not directly addressed the 1916 Report on 
Social Studies, their work is of interest because 
their approach challenges traditional and 
celebratory thinking as well as revisionist 
interpretations and develops new schools of 
thought. 
  The scholars described above have 
provided a widely divergent discussion of the 
1916 Report on Social Studies.  The scholars 
within the various schools of interpretation 
address theories and ideas on the meaning and 
intent of the work of the 1916 Committee as well 
as the social and political issues of the era.  
Moreover, the various scholarly interpretations 
run a wide gamut ranging in tone from soft to 
hard, from enthusiastic to radical.  In the 
remainder of this article, I intend to make sense of 
these conflicting schools of interpretation and 
offer a few insights on the potential for a new 
interpretation of the 1916 Report on Social 
Studies for the 21st century. 

Social Efficiency, Multiple Influences, or John 
Dewey? 
 As discussed above, a large segment of 
contemporary scholars believe that social 
efficiency was the dominant ideology that 
influenced the 1916 era (Callahan, 1962; Krug, 
1964; Lybarger, 1981, 1983, 1987; Kliebard, 
2004).  I agree.  However, it does not necessarily 
follow that the 1916 Committee as a group was 
influenced by this single ideology to the same 
level and extent as the society of the day.  As 

previously outlined, the 1916 era was replete with 
other prominent ideological concepts.  As 
Kliebard (2004) pointed out, the various 
persuasions of 20th century reformers—social 
efficiency proponents, social meliorists, social 
reconstructionists, humanists, and 
developmentalists—possessed one common idea:  
schools needed to change in order to deal with the 
impacts of industrialization, tremendous growth 
of cities, and wide spread immigration.  To some 
extent, there was agreement on the perceived 
types of defects existing in schools at that time.  
However, the different reform groups held widely 
divergent views on how to improve and expand 
education for students. 

Several scholars believe a combination of 
then prevalent social issues and certain key 
individuals affected the philosophy and outlook 
of the 1916 Committee and its recommendations.  
For instance, Krug (1964) argued that at the time 
of the 1916 Report on Social Studies the slogan 
“education for social efficiency” was understood 
to encompass:  (a) the school as an agency of 
social control, and, (b) the school as an agency of 
social service. That is, multiple influences 
supported the notion that the concept of social 
efficiency embodied training individuals to act on 
behalf of the group as well as supporting Dewey’s 
ideal that schools act as social and community 
centers (Cremin, 1961; Jenness, 1990; Whelan, 
1991, 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 2006; Nelson, 1994). 

Historian Rogers M. Smith (1997) 
outlined a rather definitive view of the various 
definitions of progressivism.  In his approach, to 
the right of the progressive group were 
individuals like William Howard Taft and Herbert 
Spencer who (a) promoted economic 
individualism on pragmatic grounds, and (b) 
supported scientific management.  The center of 
the progressive spectrum was identified in 
Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism and 



89 
 

Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom.  To the left 
were individuals, such as John Dewey, who, 
Smith indicated, were known as democratic 
progressives.  Smith suggested Dewey was 
cautious of New Nationalism and “its efforts to 
herd people into big, efficient organizations, 
scientifically managed by strong leaders” (p. 
420). 

At the same time, the differences between 
Dewey and Snedden were distinct (Krug, 1964; 
Hertzberg, 1981, 1989; Westbrook, 1991; 
Kliebard 1994).  Though Dewey used many of the 
same common administrative progressive terms 
such as “social efficiency,” Dewey had vastly 
different definitions (Westbrook, 1991).   
Dewey’s very divergent stance can be noted in his 
own statement:  “It must be borne in mind that 
ultimately social efficiency means neither more 
nor less than capacity to share in a give and take 
of experience” (Dewey, 1916, p. 141).  

 Also, there were several key influential 
1916 Committee members.  Out of the 21 
members, a short list of names appear most 
influential—Clarence D. Kingsley, Thomas Jesse 
Jones, Arthur W. Dunn, J. Lynn Barnard, James 
Harvey Robinson, and William Mace.  Analysis 
of the available evidence leads to the conclusion 
that they each had various roles and levels of 
participation on the 1916 Committee with 
differing types and degrees of influence.  The 
most notable and most influential individuals 
were Robinson and Dewey as evidenced by their 
level of direct and indirect input in the 1916 
Report on Social Studies (Jorgensen, 2010).  The 
1916 Committee members adopted a decidedly 
historical approach.   Indeed, it was Robinson 
who was instrumental in separating the 1916 
Committee from any outcomes of the Committee 
of Seven and led them to create a new approach to 
social studies (Saxe, 1991).  John Dewey, not 

actually a member, needs to be included due to 
his influence on the deliberations of the 1916 
Committee, as noted by several scholars 
(Westbrook, 1991; Saxe, 1991; Whelan, 1993; 
Evans, 2004).  Dewey’s influence is also 
evidenced in the frequency of references to his 
work in well over 30 key passages in the Report. 
 As one adds together the various 
ideological and individual influences, the 
combination effectively softens and reduces the 
idea that social efficiency as social control 
represented the overarching influence throughout 
the entire trilogy of reports.  For instance, there 
was significant disagreement among the 
proponents of school reform regarding ideas on or 
for vocational education.  This is noted in the 
Tyack and Cuban (1995) statement: “should 
educators sort out and train the ‘high-minded’ 
boys in separate schools or try to promote 
industrial democracy by infusing an 
understanding and appreciation of work in all 
pupils as John Dewey urged?” (p. 46).  In fact, 
educators’ disagreements on goals for education 
ran the entire gamut of political and social 
philosophy.  Tyack and Cuban (1995) suggest: 
“Radicals or liberals may favor a traditional 
academic curriculum as fervently as 
conservatives” (p. 46).  Thus, there may be 
sufficient reason to believe the 1916 Committee 
as a group formulated a view on social efficiency 
that diverged from some individual committee 
members.   
 The revised view held by the 1916 
Committee also diverged from both the society of 
the era and from the view of social efficiency held 
by some contemporary scholars.  Based on the 
permeating concern regarding the impact of 
immigrants, the influence of social efficiency 
concepts, and the influence of Robinson and 
Dewey as evidenced in the trilogy of reports, the 
1916 Committee reengineered its representation 



90 
 

of society’s concerns into what can be seen as a 
microcosm of Kliebard’s (2004) analysis of the 
competing camps battling for control of the 
American curriculum in the early part of the 20th 
century.   
 Further, the 1916 Report on Social Studies 
does not embody a social efficiency as social 
control orientation to the degree held by many 
modern scholars.  One reason is that over the 
years, scholars have put forth competing 
definitions for social efficiency.  Krug (1964), as 
an individual scholar, supported a very different 
view from other contemporary scholars.  Krug’s 
concept of two streams of understanding for 
social efficiency—education for social control 
and education for social service—represents a 
significant diversion from other scholars.  He 
suggested, and I agree with his view, that the 
1916 Committee understood that the term “social 
efficiency” involved both education for social 
control and education for social service.  Yet, as 
we have seen, numerous scholars supported the 
view of the 1916 Report as a social efficiency 
document.  This view could stem, in part, from 
not recognizing the unique individuality of each 
report in the trilogy.  Instead, I argue that other 
various and significant ideologies, as well as 
individual personalities that influenced the 1916 
Committee, ultimately had a profound impact on 
the 1916 Report on Social Studies.   

As a critical outcome of this view, John 
Dewey was much more of a direct influence on 
the 1916 Committee than many contemporary 
scholars suggest (Jorgensen, 2010).  From 
beginning to end, the third and final report is 
replete with Deweyan philosophy through three 
extended direct quotations and at least thirty 
direct references to Dewey’s “immediate interest” 
and “immediate needs” principle (U.S. Bureau of 
Education, 1916, pp. 10-62).   In addition, 
teaching illustrations from educators in the field 

selected to be highlighted as examples by the 
1916 Committee were entirely based on Deweyan 
principles.  Dewey’s ideas were readily adopted 
by those educators as indicated in the numerous 
curriculum examples both in place and in stages 
of development identified and used in the Report.  
More importantly, the 1916 Committee solidly 
embraced and repeatedly used Dewey’s three-step 
process as the recommended foundation for the 
newly created social studies courses.   
 Throughout their recommendations the 
1916 Committee consistently stressed that the 
three prongs of Dewey’s teaching principle (a) 
started, whenever possible, with a problem or 
topic of study carefully selected in order to meet:  
(b) the pupil’s own immediate interest, and, (c) 
provided a topic or problem of study that has 
significance to society.  In doing so, they 
consistently maintained in a most Deweyan 
manner their educational theory for history and 
the social studies courses in secondary education 
through the 12th grade.   

Again, for each history course, the 1916 
Committee specifically mirrored this teaching 
principle and recommended as an organizing 
principle: 

(1) The adoption to the fullest extent 
possible of a “topical” method, or a 
“problem” method, as opposed to a 
method based on chronological sequence 
alone. 

(2) The selection of topics or problems 
for study with reference to (a) the 
pupil’s own immediate interest; (b) 
general social significance. (U.S. 
Bureau of Education, 1916, p. 37). 

Indeed, for the capstone course to be 
completed in the 12th grade, the 1916 Committee 
simply increased the level of challenge in their 



91 
 

three pronged teaching principle.  The new POD 
course recommendation stressed organizing 
instruction, “on the basis of concrete problems of 
vital importance to society and of immediate 
interest to the pupil” (U.S. Bureau of Education, 
1916, p. 53). 

Reexamining John Dewey’s Influence 
Some scholars argue that Dewey’s 

concept of “present growth” and “needs” was 
vague to the members of the 1916 Committee 
(Fallace, 2009; Correia, 1994).  Yet, the 1916 
Committee created a Dewey-based circle of 
recommendations that were consistent and 
reflective of his public presentations, as well as 
Dewey’s publications (1897, 1899, 1910, 1916).  
This circle of ideas started with Dewey, followed 
Dewey’s precepts throughout the Report, and led 
back to Dewey to complete their 
recommendations.  The circle began early in the 
1916 Report on Social Studies in “The point of 
view of the committee” section.  There, in the 
third item, the 1916 Committee stated: “One 
principle the committee has endeavored to keep 
before it consistently throughout this report 
because of its fundamental character.  It is 
contained in the following quotation from Prof. 
Dewey:” (U.S. Bureau of Education, 1916, p. 10). 
The full Dewey quotation that followed on page 
11 included his “needs of present growth” 
principle.  The circle back to Dewey’s principle 
was completed on page 40 of the 1916 Report on 
Social Studies under the section “To what extent 
and in what ways are college requirements and 
life requirements mutually exclusive?” (U.S. 
Bureau of Education, 1916, p. 40).  At this point, 
the 1916 Committee referenced their intent to 
repeat the entire Dewey quotation from page 11 
as a restatement and wrote:  

 

If we could really believe that attending 
to the needs of present growth would 
keep the child and teacher alike busy and 
would also provide the best possible 
guarantee of the learning needed in the 
future [in college or elsewhere], 
transformation of educational ideals 
might soon be accomplished, and other 
desirable changes would largely take 
care of themselves (Bureau of 
Education, 1916, p. 40). 
 

By the conclusion of the 1916 Report on 
Social Studies, the conceptual trail from Dewey to 
Mace to Dewey to Robinson to Dewey 
consistently circles around Deweyan ideas.  After 
all, a document that puts faith in the hands of 
teachers, advocates decision-making and 
experimentation by teachers—not school 
administrators—and speaks of “transformation of 
educational ideals” (U.S. Bureau of Education, 
1916, p. 40) can hardly be called efficient.  There 
is nothing utility-minded or efficient in these 
concepts written in the Report.  Rather, much like 
Dewey, the 1916 Committee took some aspects of 
all the camps competing for their place in the 
American curriculum and created a unique, usable 
document for education reflective of Deweyan 
ideals. 

Although John Dewey was not a member 
of the 1916 Committee, before, during, and 
subsequent to the tenure of the 1916 Committee, 
Dewey was regarded as a leading educator, and in 
particular an educational philosopher (Hertzberg, 
1981; Westbrook, 1991).  As a result, Dewey’s 
brand of principles and educational philosophy 
was of direct benefit to the 1916 Committee in 
their development of teaching principles for 
social studies.  Rather than risk paraphrasing and 
making Dewey’s theory and pedagogy unclear, 
the 1916 Committee relied on his principles in 



92 
 

their recommendations and in their use of direct, 
verbatim quotations of his philosophy throughout 
the body of the 1916 Report on Social Studies.   
The Report was replete with reflections, 
examples, and recommendations the 1916 
Committee deemed most advantageous for the 
purposes of secondary education.  These 
recommendations cumulatively called for the 
adoption of a problem solution method and the 
selection of study topics that met both the 
students’ immediate interests as well as social 
significance in the teaching and learning of social 
studies.  Therefore, it can be argued that their 
ideas for formatting the new social studies were 
drafted straight from Dewey’s educational 
playbook.  Thus, this author supports the 
Deweyan school of interpretation. 
 
Conclusion 

The 1916 Report on Social Studies 
remains recognized as a seminal report on its own 
merit.  This recognition may flow from the high 
regard held for Dewey throughout the various 
schools of interpretation.   Dewey’s role in the 
competition waged between the ideological 
camps of the 1916 era that were reflected in the 
1916 Report on Social Studies plays a part in the 
scholars’ considerations.   However, after almost 
100 years, the extent of Dewey’s role has yet to 
be universally recognized.  Dewey provided the 
1916 Committee with a direct conceptual guide to 
lead them through the entanglement of social 
efficiency ideology of their era.  The numerous 
teaching illustrations used by the 1916 Committee 
in the third report alone exemplified Dewey’s 
approach directly through examples of educators 
designing lessons, units, and programs for 
students.  These examples cited by the 1916 
Committee were diametrically opposite from the 
top down approach advocated by Snedden, 
Taylor, or even Bobbitt.  As a result, Dewey’s 

steadfastly maintained educational philosophy 
became the stalwart backbone that the 1916 
Committee needed to reach beyond contradictions 
contained in the first two reports in an 
uncompromising manner.  Thus, in the third 
report the 1916 Committee created and provided 
recommendations that were not limited in scope 
to one or even two ideologies.  Dewey was the 
strongest influence on the 1916 Committee 
because his concepts and philosophy provided a 
direct methodology to fulfill the 1916 Committee 
members’ vision for social studies.    

One reason was that the 1916 Committee 
relied on very different and broad-scope Deweyan 
notions much better suited for their plans for 
social studies. They stated that the newly created 
social studies were differentiated from other 
subjects due to an emphasis on social content, not 
on social aims.  In their opinion, the nature of 
social studies afforded unique opportunities to 
educate students as members of society.  The 
attributes of social studies did not equate directly 
to the narrow social aims of social efficiency only 
as social control.  After all, Smith (1997) 
suggested Dewey was cautious of “efforts to herd 
people into big, efficient organizations, 
scientifically managed by strong leaders.”  
Instead, he believed Dewey leaned toward 
“Jeffersonian traditions of local participatory 
democracy and openness to immigrants, 
reformulated on pragmatist premises and purged 
as far as possible of racism” (p. 420).  Social 
studies was instead driven by issues based social 
content and Deweyan pedagogy which was 
designed to feed the immediate needs and 
interests of students. 

The 1916 Committee integrated Dewey’s 
principles into their recommendations from the 
beginning of the actual text of the 1916 Report on 
Social Studies on page 9 through the conclusion 
on page 63.   They applied Dewey’s principles 



93 
 

both directly and indirectly.  Extensive verbatim 
quotes by Dewey appeared three times.  Direct 
reference to his “immediate interest” and 
“immediate needs” principles were used 
approximately thirty times—spanning the text 
from page 9 to page 63.  The 1916 Committee 
placed an emphasis on the three components of 
Dewey’s primary teaching principle.  They did 
not need to reinvent the wheel as evidenced by 
their own statements and repeated references in 
the 1916 Report on Social Studies to the students’ 
needs of present growth coupled with immediate 
needs and interests.  This was the 1916 
Committee’s philosophical and pedagogical 
framework.  In his discussion on this point, 
Lybarger (1981) concluded: “Committee 
members called the adoption of such a principle 
‘‘a new and most important element’, and 
claimed the work of John Dewey as warrant for 
their principle” (p. 177).  This emphasis became 
the central theme of the 1916 Committee’s 
recommendations.   
 Dewey’s concepts and principles were 
usable, doable, and practical.  That is, the 
Deweyan ideas amassed in their arsenal allowed 
the 1916 Committee to publish recommendations 
that were already having a positive effect on 
teaching.  This was evidenced in the dozen or so 
illustrations in the Report which presented 
Deweyan based teaching programs from a variety 
of different schools in diverse geographic 
locations. 
 Indeed, the 1916 Report on Social Studies 
retains its status as a seminal educational 
document, primarily because of the continuing 
influence and relevance of John Dewey’s 
philosophy and principles for education.  In short, 
Dewey’s ideas have stood the test of time.  As a 
result, the 1916 Report on Social Studies 
represents an endorsement of direct application 
and continued use of Deweyan principles.  

Therefore, educators today may benefit from the 
opportunity to view the 1916 Report on Social 
Studies from the perspective of this proposed 
Deweyan school of interpretation for several 
reasons. 
 First, the strong Deweyan influence on the 
1916 Committee is of interest to scholars and 
teachers who are part of the Deweyan tradition.  
A long line of educators have continued in the 
Deweyan tradition and educational philosophy, 
including the John Dewey Society (AERA) and 
the issues centered community (NCSS), with a 
long history of scholarship and theory to practice 
work.   
 Second, the work of several contemporary 
scholars explores themes similar to the 1916 
Report on Social Studies and represents, in part, 
an extension of the 1916 Committee’s Deweyan 
based philosophy and an attempt to find empirical 
warrants for similar ideas (Newmann, 1988, 
1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1991a, 1991b; Hahn, 1996; 
and Evans, 2004).   
 Third, the constructivist paradigm of 
authentic pedagogy that has emerged to some 
prominence in recent years has much in common 
with Dewey and the key principles of the 1916 
Committee.  The current concepts of authentic 
pedagogy are embodied in three key points.  
Specifically, the thrust of authentic pedagogy 
involves application of knowledge and skills in a 
creative, original manner, rather than a mere use 
of facts and information.   
 Fourth, many key principles and the main 
curriculum pattern proposed by the 1916 
Committee continues to survive, although it has 
been challenged and modified.  Issues-centered 
social studies continues to support notions of 
problem based methodology (Hahn, 1996). 
Finally, contemporary recognition of Dewey’s 
influence may result in a renewed educational 
reference to the 1916 Committee’s 



94 
 

recommendations for the teaching and learning of 
social studies in the 21st century.  The social 
studies teaching framework recommended by the 
1916 Committee was designed to both create and 
meet student’s interest and to provide a deeper 
understanding of topics of significance to society.  
A renewal of the 1916 Committee’s 
recommendations could motivate students and 
enhance efforts to make social studies more 
relevant and meaningful to result in improved 
learning experiences for today’s students. 
 

References  
 

Callahan, R.B. (1962).  Education and the cult of 
efficiency.  Chicago, IL: The University of 
Chicago Press. 

Correia, S.T. (1994).  Thomas Jesse Jones—
Doing God’s Work and the 1916 Report, In 
M.R.Nelson (Ed.), The social studies in 
secondary education: A reprint of the seminal 
1916 report with annotations and 
commentaries.  (Document Reproduction 
Service ERIC No. ED374072). 

Cremin, L. (1961).  The transformation of the 
school.  New York: Knopf. 

Dewey, J. (1897).  My pedagogic creed.  School 
Journal, 54, 77-80.  

Dewey, J. (1899).  The school and society.  
Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.  

Dewey, J. (1910).  How we think.  Lexington, 
MA:  D.C. Heath. 

Dewey, J. (1916).  Democracy and education.  
New York: McMillan. 

Evans, R.W. (2004).  Social studies wars:  What 
should we teach the children?  New York:  
Teachers’ College Press. 

Evans, R.W. (2007).  This happened in America: 
Harold R. Rugg and the censure of the social 

studies, Charlotte, NC: Information Age 
Publishing. 

Fallace, Thomas (2009).  John Dewey’s influence 
on the origins of the social studies: An analysis 
of the historiography and new interpretation.  
Review of Educational Research 79 (2), 601-
624.  

Hahn, C.L. (1996).   Research on issues-centered 
social studies.  In R.W. Evans & Saxe, D.W. 
(Eds.), Handbook for teaching social issues.  
Washington, DC: National Council for the 
Social Studies, Bulletin #93.   

Hendricks, L. V. (1946).  James Harvey 
Robinson: Teacher of History.  Morningside 
Heights, NY:  King’s Crown Press. 

Hertzberg, H. (1981).  Social studies reform: 
1880-1980.  Boulder, CO:  Social Science 
Education Consortium. 

Hertzberg, H.W. (1989).  History and 
progressivism: A century of reform proposals.  
In P. Gagnon (Ed.).  Historical Literacy: The 
case for history in American education (pp. 
69-102).  New York:  Macmillan. 

Jenness, D. (1990).  Making sense of social 
studies.  New York:  Macmillan. 

Jorgensen, C. G. (2010).  Unraveling Conflicting 
Interpretations:  A Reexamination of the 1916 
Report on Social Studies.  Ph.D. diss., Utah 
State University. 

Kliebard, H. M. (1994).  “That Evil Genius of the 
Negro Race”:  Thomas Jesse Jones and 
Educational Reform, Journal of Curriculum 
and Supervision 10, 5-20. 

Kliebard, H. (2004).  The struggle for the 
American curriculum:  1893-1958 (3rd Ed).   
New York:  RoutledgeFalmer. 

Krug, E. A. (1964).  The shaping of the American 
high school1880-1920.  Madison, WI:  
University of Wisconsin Press.  



95 
 

Lybarger, M. (1981).  Origins of the social 
studies curriculum, 1865-1916.  Ph.D. diss., 
University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Lybarger, M. B. (1983).  Origins of the modern 
social studies: 1900-1916.  History of 
Education Quarterly,23, No. 4, 455-468). 

Lybarger, M. B. (1987).  Need as ideology:  A 
look at the early social studies. In T. S. 
Popkewitz (Ed.).  The formation of school 
subjects:  The struggle for creating an 
american institution (pp. 176-189).  New 
York:  Falmer.  

Nelson, M.R. (1994).  The social studies in 
secondary education: A reprint of the seminal 
1916 report with annotations and 
commentaries.  (Document Reproduction 
Service ERIC No. ED374072). 

Newmann, F. (1988).  Higher order thinking in 
the high school curriculum.  NASSP Bulletin,  
60-61. 

Newmann, F. (1990a).  Higher order thinking in 
teaching social studies: A rational for the 
assessment of classroom thoughtfulness.  
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 41-56. 

Newmann F. (1990b).  Qualities of thoughtful 
social studies classes:  An empirical profile.  
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 253-275. 

Newmann, F. (1990c).  A test of higher order 
thinking in social studies:  Persuasive writing 
on constitutional issues using the NAEP 
Approach.  Social  Education, 54, 369-373.      

Newmann, F. (1991a).  Classroom thoughtfulness 
and students’ higher order thinking:  Common 
indicators and diverse social studies courses.  
Theory and Research in Social Education, 19, 
410-433. 

Newmann, F. (1991b).  Higher order thinking in 
the teaching of social studies:  Connections 
between theory and practice.  In J. Voss, D. 
Perkins, & J. Segals (Eds.), Informal reasoning 

and education, pp. 380-400.  Hillsdale, NY: 
Erlbaum. 

Ravitch, D.  (1978).  The revisionists revised:  A 
critique of the radical attack on the schools.  
New York: Basic Books.  

Ravitch, D. (1985).  From history to social 
studies: Dilemmas and problems. In The 
schools we deserve: Reflections on the 
educational crisis of our times (pp. 112-32).  
New York:  Basic  Books. 

Ravitch, D. (1989a).  The plight of history in 
America’s schools.  In P. Gagnon (Ed.), 
Historical Literacy: The case for history in 
American education (pp. 51-68).  New York: 
Macmillan. 

Ravitch, D. (1989b).  The revival of history: A 
response.  The Social Studies, 80(3), 89-91. 

Ravitch, D.  (2000).  Left back.  New York: 
Simon & Schuster. 

Saxe, D. W. (1991).  Social studies in schools:  A 
history of the early years.  Albany, NY: State 
University of New York Press. 

Smith, R. M. (1997).  Civic ideals:  Conflicting 
visions of citizenship in U.S. history.  New 
Haven, CT:  Yale University Press. 

Tryon, R. M. (1935).  The social sciences as 
schools subjects.  New York: Charles 
Scribner’s Sons. 

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995).  Tinkering toward 
utopia:  A century of public school reform. 
Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. 

U.S. Bureau of Education, (1913).  Preliminary 
statements by chairmen of committees of the 
national education association on: The 
reorganization of secondary education.  
Washington,  D.C.: Government Printing 
Office, Bulletin No. 41. 

U.S. Bureau of Education, (1915).  The teaching 
of community civics.  Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, Bulletin No. 23. 



96 
 

U.S. Bureau of Education. (1916) The social 
studies in secondary education. Washington, 
DC:  Government Printing Office, Bulletin No. 
28. 

Wesley, E.B. (1937).  Teaching the social studies: 
Theory and practice.  Boston: D.C.Heath. 

Westbrook, R. B. (1991).  John Dewey and 
American democracy.   Ithaca, NY: Cornell 
University Press. 

Whelan, M. (1991).  James Harvey Robinson, the 
new history, and the 1916 social studies report.  
The History Teacher, 34, No. 2, 191-202.  

Whelan, M. (1993).  Review:  Social studies in 
schools:  A history of the early years by David 
Warren Saxe. American Journal of Education, 
101, No. 3, 320-323. 

Whelan, M. (1997a). A particularly lucid lens: 
The Committee of ten and the Social Studies 
Committee in historical context.  Journal of 
Curriculum and Supervision, 12, 256-268. 

Whelan, M. (1997b).  History as the core of social 
studies education.  In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The 
social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems,  

Whelan, M. (2006).  Teaching history: A 
Constructivist approach.  In E. W. Ross (Ed.).  
The social studies curriculum: Purposes, 
problems, and possibilities (3 Ed.) pp. 37-49.  
Albany, NY: State University of New York 
Press. 

 
 

 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


