Content standards have a significant impact on the classroom as they provide a foundation on which teachers base their instruction and ensure a uniform experience in similar grade levels and settings (Ravitch, 1995; McMannon, 1997). In the field of social studies, standards not only identify the knowledge deemed worthy of consideration, they also suggest additonal desired student outcomes such as the development of agency and civic-mindedness (Ornstein, 1982).

This subject area has been characterized by contention over its role in serving the interests of a democratic society. Traditional notions of social studies limit its intentions to the development of content knowledge, while a more progressive tradition looks to use instruction to build students' capacity for taking informed action (Stanley, 2005). This dynamic meant little consensus for national standards or conceptual framework in the field's numerous disciplines (Evans, 2004; Thornton, 2005).

One relatively recent contribution to social studies that was integrated by many states without widespread controversy is the College, Career, and Civic Live (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. This voluntarily-adoptable conceptual guidance explicity targeted the disciplines of history, civics, economics, and geography, and was developed in order "to support states in creating standards that prepare young people for effective and successful participation in college, careers, and civic life" (NCSS, 2013). Lauded for its impact (Grant, Swan, & Lee, 2017), this 2013 initiative was left with only one narrow, formal assessment as to how it has influenced the orientation of states' social studies standards (New, Grant, Swan, & Lee, 2021). Employing the dimensions articulated within the C3 Framework in a comparison of current state standards versus their previous iterations best promoted awareness of the extent to and manner in which its objective has been met. This study applied quantitative analysis of the language comprising current and past standards of states that have made revisions since 2013. Ensuing discussion was intended to offer social studies leadership further understanding of the challenges affecting integration of the C3 Framework and future conceptual guidance.

Data analysis suggested that the changes between prior and current versions of state social studies standards, when observed through the classification system of the dimensions and subsections of the C3 Framework, are statistically significant in the majority of categories. Effect sizes in this relationship were largely weak, but trends indicating increased attention to Dimension 1: Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries and Dimension 4: Communicating Conclusions and Taking Informed Action were evident. Perhaps relatedly, Dimension 2: Applying Disciplinary Tools and Concepts characterizes fewer standards than it did in prior iterations. The analysis also considered the changes in standards, factored by discipline, by grade level, by states' acknowledgement of the C3 Framework, by date of revision, by governor's political affiliation, and by geographic region, each of which yielded their own patterns.