EVALUATING A CONSUMER GOVERNMENT COURSE

 

In this posting, there is one more concern this blog addresses regarding a proposed approach to civics education.  For interested readers, they are encouraged to look up the posting, “A Practical Turn” (March 19, 2024).  It is there that one finds the beginning of this effort.  It can be found through the citation here,[1] or, along with subsequent postings, by using the archive feature of this blog.  In total, those postings provide a rationale for the course of study being proposed. 

As for the remaining concern, i.e., what this posting addresses, that would be the evaluation of the course itself – curriculum evaluation.  To evaluate this course of study several aspects are reviewed.  This evaluation scheme categorizes those factors according to a procedural model of evaluation devised by Lawrence Halprin.[2]  The model is entitled the RSVP Cycle and seems more appropriate here than usual curriculum models because what is needed is not the evaluation of a school wide curriculum, but of a course of study.

While dated, this model is still well regarded.[3]  The letters R, S, V, P refer to the categories of concerns or criteria Halprin says are present in ideal procedural relationships during the performance of a multidisciplinary event.  Because of the decision-making emphasis of this course, such a model promises to be useful and is open-ended to concerns of the environment in which this course of study would be utilized.

The categories are:

R = resources upon which a course can draw.

1.    Does this course operate within and take advantage of physical limitations?

2.    Does this course operate within financial constraints?

3.    Does this course respect societal, institutional, cultural expectations?

S = sources evaluating preparation processes leading to implementation.

1.    Are the roles of participants defined and sensitive to their needs and dispositions?

2.    Are the curriculum goals and objectives accepted by significant others?

3.    Are time allocations reasonable for completion of tasks?

4.    Are communication preparations adequate for acquiring needed information?

V = valuaction (coined term) which analyzes the consequences of actions (decisions) taken.

1.    Are all predicted outcomes accounted for in the progression of the course?

2.    Are values incorporated at decision points clearly stated and understood?

3.    Are the two above concerns given adequate priority in terms of their utility?

P = performance, that is evaluation of actual behaviors during the process.

1.    Are specified behaviors appropriate to meet curricular and instructional objectives?

2.    Are behaviors and processes efficient?

3.    Are processes flexible enough to meet reasonable unplanned changes?

It is suggested here that if this course were to take on any level of implementation among schools, that, for each implementation, this model be considered to develop evaluative instrument specifically suitable to that implementation, both on a summative and formative basis.  This process should be done by school site curricular administrators. 

A couple of things should be kept in mind.  One, this course is offered as a transition stage toward an approach that is communal, a course guided by a liberated federalism construct.  And two, if this course, with administrative approval, is only being utilized by a particular teacher – not a school or school district –these ideas are suggested to assist that teacher.  That is, they should not be considered a “must do” list of required criteria.  And with that, the rationale for a consumer government course of study is complete.

[Note:  Due to medical reasons, this blogger is ceasing the blog’s Tuesday-Friday posting schedule.  He anticipates he will, from time to time, issue new postings.  He also wishes to thank readers for their readership.]

---

[1] URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2024_03_17_archive.html.

[2] Lawrence Halprin, The RSVP Cycles:  Creative Processes in the Human Environment (New York, NY:  George Braziller, Inc., 1970).

[3] Interested?  See URL, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbIi966lOLs.

INSTRUCTIONAL EVALUATION FOR CONSUMER GOVERNMENT

 

Again, this blog proceeds with its promotion of a consumer government approach to civics education.  To date, this blog has addressed various concerns with such a change including commentary on the needs for the approach, needs of the subject matter, curricular goals and objectives, related teaching strategies, etc. 

Interested readers who have not followed the proceeding postings, but wish to read them, are directed to the first one, “A Practical Turn” (March 19, 2024).  It can be found through the citation here[1] or, along with subsequent postings, the archive feature of the blog.  By reviewing them, readers can consider a multi-faceted rationale for this proposal.

          This posting addresses instructional evaluation.  Evaluation at the instructional level can utilize a variety of techniques.  On a summative basis, evaluation should be criterion reference based.  Competencies on the following concerns need to be spelled out:

a)    Cognitive – knowledge (recall) of basic facts and procedures, application of inquiry skills (modeled after scientific method and other reputable research methodologies), logical deduction skills, and appropriate communication skills.  And …

b)    Affective – non-graded attitudes that relate to dispositions regarding citizen participation regarding governing issues.

A pre-test, that can use a multiple choice or open-ended format, need to be administered to determine:

a)    Pre-requisite knowledge and skills attained (e.g., sixth grade reading and mathematics level proficiencies),

b)    Knowledge of subject matter that instruction will address, and

c)    Relevant value orientations students hold prior to instruction.

As with most courses of study, there would most likely be a final written examination.  That test will provide evidence as to the success of instruction by comparing results with pre-test to identify measured change.  By comparing results between pre- and post-testing, specific areas of deficiencies can be detected by conducting an item analysis.

          On a formative basis, individual units could provide unit tests and quizzes, formulated from lesson objectives, and on student-project work products.  Again, course objectives should guide these reviews.  Informally, teachers can rely on classroom participation and on one-on-one discussions with students to acquire feedback information.

           With those concerns reviewed, there remains only one topic this blogger wishes to address, that is, evaluation of this proposed course of study itself.  The next posting will mark the end of this proposal by looking at curriculum evaluation, asking how one can determine how effective can a course on consumer government, as outlined in this blog, be.

---

[1] URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2024_03_17_archive.html.

TEACHING STRATEGIES FOR CONSUMER GOVERNMENT

 

Picking up on a topic this blog has been addressing since the posting, “Practical Turn” (March 19, 2024),[1] this posting continues its promotion of a consumer government approach to civics education.  To remind readers, the adoption of that approach is seen as an initial step toward a civics curriculum based on a liberated federalism construct which features a more local, interactive role for students with their government. 

It would do this by encouraging a sense, among the citizenry, of a partnership in which each citizen has an emotional stake in advancing the common good – a tangible commitment.  To make the case for this adoption, the ensuing postings chose as a pedagogic model, the jurisprudential model,[2] by which to develop decision-making, value clarifying lessons that could be designed for this consumer government course of study. 

This choice was not meant to be mandatory, but as a responsible option to illustrate what could be done in developing suitable lesson plans to achieve the overall goals outlined earlier in this blog.  This chosen model calls on students to make value judgments on controversial issues and this blog’s promotion opens its options to non-value conflict situations.  Another variance is that what is being promoted, unlike the original model, opens instructional options beyond exclusively employing inquiry-based lessons. 

Other lesson strategies can be employed especially if lessons do not address controversial topics.  Finally, the option promoted here analyzes a variety of problem situations as they might be related to governmental actions and/or problems at different geographical levels or locations.  Those levels, as described earlier, range from the immediate environment of students to the global settings, but at each level they can and do affect the local political environments of those students.

Strategies and materials to be successful, they must be particularly sensitive to the fact that a large portion of the students for which this approach would be used, would be from a non-college-bound population.  Experience shows, by making the curriculum relevant, practical, and less abstract, these less academically motivated or disposed students will find resulting lessons as more useful.

To augment this attribute, strategies must maintain low abstraction content.  Relations between inquiry activities, for example, and problem areas need to be presented in as natural a manner as possible.  Readings should be short and lesson exercises limited in scope, but as the course progresses, a cumulative effect toward sophistication should be built in and encouraged among students.

And with those thoughts, this promotion has two more areas of concern – ideas regarding evaluation of instructional strategies and evaluation of the proposed curricular change.  These two topics will be what the next two postings will address.  Again, if readers, who have not done so, wish to read up on the totality of this rationale for consumer government, they can, using the archive feature of this blog, begin with the above cited posting, “A Practical Turn.”

---

[1] URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2024_03_17_archive.html.

[2] Fred M. Newman and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy:  An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA:  Little, Brown and Company, 1970).  An earlier version can be found in Donald W. Oliver and James P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School (Boston, MA:  Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966).

INSTRUCTIONAL CONCERNS FOR CONSUMER GOVERNMENT

 

Since the posting, “A Practical Turn” (March 19, 2024),[1] this blog has been promoting the adoption of a consumer government approach to civics education.  The aim of such a change would be to begin the focus of civics from a structural/national view to a more local/engaged view. 

What is in place is a highly individualistic sense to politics and while the change would not counter that sense, it would help shift students’ attention to the concerns of their local communities.  In doing so, civics would undermine the natural rights view and encourage students toward a federated view.  Readers, if they have not done so, are encouraged to use the archive feature of this blog to review those postings.  That would be the postings that develop a rational for this curricular change.

This posting will further comment on the goals and objectives the last posting, “Goals and Objectives for Consumer Government” (April 9, 2024),[2] presented.  It begins by suggesting that school site planning of this proposed curricular change should strive to adopt a resulting course of study that highlights local problems or how statewide, national, or global problems affect local realities.

Such adaptation needs to be done carefully weighing the constraints of the classroom and relevancy of the materials adopted.  Text materials need to be edited to reflect this newer approach (not a simple task), and they would provide a pre-determined set of governmental/political problems.  While it is expected some of these identified problems will be applicable to local conditions throughout the US, others will not.  Naturally, appropriate deletions, changes, and additions should be considered by implementing staff.

To further the “local” effect, where possible, an added goal to this curriculum at the instructional level would be to learn from real life situations or what are known as field experiences.  That is, students are called upon, where appropriate, to actively participate in political activities relevant to a problem or issue under study.  This instruction should be considered or planned as local needs and concerns dictate.

The lesson objectives as presented in the last posting might seem repetitive since one basic decision-making model is being employed.  It should be kept in mind that what has been presented is an initial proposal, admittedly needing further development.  Variety of learning objectives, though, is highly encouraged when planning the cognitive input segments.  Depending on the nature of the individual problems considered, students will need reliable knowledge to make rational decisions based on actual conditions.

          The lesson objectives should reflect the different types of knowledge presented.  For example, it is strongly suggested that objectives emphasize the development of process skills associated with inquiry.  Particularly in problems where there are controversial decisions to be made, then predictive assertions, anticipating the likelihood of consequences, can be investigated through student inquiry that aim at discovering cause and effect relationships.

          These instructional objectives will target the teaching of transferable skills, make disciplinary information functional, and add to the overall open-endedness of real decision-making processes.  And in lessons where controversial decisions are to be made, they further highlight the value component of the lesson.  In that, the lesson plans should first develop affective domain objective – those objectives regarding students’ value positions.

          And finally, cognitive material – those elements regarding factual content – will rely heavily on political science discipline but will not be exclusive to that source.  Other social sciences and respected research sources should be employed for relevant, reliable information.  This might be also useful in discrediting disinformation one can readily find on social media.  All this suggests certain teaching strategies, which is the topic of the next posting.

---

[1] URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2024_03_17_archive.html.

[2] URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2024_04_07_archive.html.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR CONSUMER GOVERNMENT

 

Usually in a presentation by curriculum developers of some new curricular strategy, they offer a short rationale for the new plans and then present a list of goals and objectives.  Of late, this blog has been promoting a curricular change in American civics classrooms – a promotion that started with the posting, “A Practical Turn” (March 19, 2024).

That change targets the underlying mental construct that currently guides civics education.  That construct is the natural rights view that focuses on the national electorate and the national government.  Most of the lessons review the major structures, processes, and functions of the national government.  The proposed change would be to a consumer government approach. 

This shift would retain to some degree the individualistic view that the natural rights construct supports.  But it would have students’ focus be aimed at local political realities and, therefore, draw their attention to their communities where most consumer issues are centered, at least as they are experienced by most citizens. 

In other words, this change is seen as a midway step toward a more communal approach that would be provided by the adoption of the liberated federalist construct.  All these terms have been defined in previous postings, but for the purposes here it suffices to know that the natural rights view is individualistic, the federalist view is significantly communal, and consumer government is concerned with citizens, either individually or in groups, seeking services from government.

          Since this blog’s presentation is not formally stating a curricular change at some school district or state education department, the goal has been to just introduce this suggested change to a general audience.  As such, what has been described to this point has been more of an introduction to certain curricular ideas.  Therefore, this informal approach seems more useful for this blog’s purposes.  But it is time to set out a list of goals and objectives.

          Here they are, curricular goals and objectives for a consumer government curriculum.

 

Curriculum goals:

1.     Understand the major structural, procedural, and functional features of the federal, state, and local governments.

2.     Responsibly and rationally propose solutions to a series of individual and/or group political problems or issues.  Each of these problems or issues features a government role and the interests of individuals and/or groups.  They emanate from the following environments:  self/home, neighborhood, city/town, county, state, nation, international.

3.     Appreciate the functional role of academic disciplines – in terms of their findings and research protocols – play in solving related governmental challenges.

4.     Define self-interest in problem/issue situations involving governmental agencies.

 

And for each goal, the following objectives:

 

Goal 1 –

1.     Comprehend the major structures, processes, and functions of the federal, state, and local governments.

2.     List the major components of the federal, state, and local governments.

3.     List the functions of selected components of the federal, state, and local governments.

4.     Give examples of how the major components of the federal, state, and local governments interact.

5.     Describe the major problem issues currently being addressed by the chief components of the federal, state, and local governments.

Goal 2 –

1.     Be able to solve responsibly and rationally a series of individual or group problems involving governments emanating from a variety of environments.

2.     Define problem/issues situations according to the following concerns:  a.  Does the situation affect the interests of oneself or of significant others (e.g., a family member)?  b.  Does the solution of the problem/issue involve the application of an established process entailing no or few options or does it demand investigation, valuing, and choosing from alternatives?

3.     Define chief political and ethical concepts involved with problem/issue situations.

4.     Describe factual information involved with problem/issue situations.

5.     Investigate, using mostly disciplinary content and methods, the problem/issue situation to attain relevant information.

6.     Formulate a course of action aimed at reasonably and ethically solving the problem/issue under study.

Goal 3 –

1.     Appreciate the functional role that academic discipline methods or other responsible research methods and content play in solving problems/issues involving governments.

2.     Accept readily the role of disciplines and of other responsible research protocols’ content and methods.

3.     Verbalize the need for disciplinary and other responsible research protocols in terms of their content and methodologies in decision-making efforts as they deal with people’s interaction(s) with government.

4.     Voluntarily utilize disciplinary and other responsible research protocols’ content and methods in performing unit of study activities.

Goal 4 –

1.     Define self-interest in problem/issue situations involving governmental agencies.

2.     Logically deduce from stated life goals appropriate defensible values as they relate to problem/issue situations under study.

3.     Analyze problem/issue situations and identify the involved self-interests they entail.

4.     Formulate strategies that are conducive to stated values and self-interest claims and logically address the problem/issue situation under study.

5.     Evaluate previous relevant value positions according to new problem/issue situations and information discovered by conducted research.

 

Of course, all of these ideas – including the above goals and objectives – reflect a planning process that is still very much in need of further thought and development, and the next posting will comment on that need.

A UNIT OF STUDY FOR CONSUMER GOVERNMENT

 

For readers who do not read this blog regularly, it is currently promoting a change in civics education.  It argues that today that subject is guided by a mental construct, the natural rights view, which holds that individuals have the right to do what they want as long as they respect others having the same right.  This is a highly individualistic view. 

This should change to the adoption of another construct, that being liberated federalism which is a significant communal view.  That is a view in which citizens see each other as partners under a compact, the US Constitution (at the state level, the state constitution).  But reality being what it is, this change might be too transformative.  So, this blog has suggested, as a midway step, to first change to a consumer government approach which has students engage in problem-solving strategies where they address political problems from a local focus.

The last posting identified that such lessons can be organized by a decision-making model.  The literature is full of such models, but this posting will utilize one of the older ones offered by Fred M. Newman and Donald W. Oliver.[1]  That posting introduced the approach with the following:

 

This model deals with case studies in which individuals or groups are presented with moral dilemma situations.  Students are basically called on to express their opinions on what should be done in these situations.  In the process, students must deal with the following questions:

 

1.     Which policies should be adopted or devised – value questions?

2.     Which facts are pertinent – factor questions?

3.     Which concepts best organize one’s concerns – definitional distinctions?

4.     Which theories or models best describe or explain the factors involved – abstracted insights?

 

These questions are derived from relevant disciplinary content or perspectives (such as ethical-legal, political, sociological-anthropological, psychological, historical, economics) and students go about answering them to make rational, informed decisions as to what should be done in each problem situation.

 

That posting indicated that this posting would outline a classroom strategy that would give readers a more concrete sense of what is being suggested.

          This presentation is offered as a list of steps a teacher could follow.  The list is not presented as an ironclad strategy, the objective is merely to give readers a sense of how the Newman and Oliver model could be used.  With that in mind, here are the steps:

 

1.     A unit of study begins with students presented with a situation in which a need for governmental action would be reasonably determined by an individual or group.  A la Newman and Oliver, the situation should have a moral concern.

2.     Depending on the environmental level (e.g., neighborhood level or state), students are asked:  does the situation present conflict-of-interest between or among factions (either individuals and/or groups within and/or outside government)?

3.     If yes, students are asked to consider appropriate policy-value questions and are given time to answer or research them and formulate their responses.

4.     If no or after students are given enough time to accomplish #3, students define key concepts associated with the problem situation.

5.     Then students are asked:  does the case under study demand a simple or complex process to derive a preferred course of action?

6.     If simple, the teacher instructs students as to what that course of action would be.  These are usually well-established process protocols.

7.     If complex, students engage in one of a variety of information gathering and analyzing activities which are geared to answering:  What governmental agencies and or individuals are involved?  What are the likely actions/inactions of these individuals/agencies?  When applicable, what moral values are at stake in the situation?  What reasonable alternative courses of action exist for those involved?  What are the reasonable consequences of these alternatives?  And what is the likelihood of each consequence happening or occurring?

8.     And, whether simple or complex, the unit ends with students formulating a preferred course of action and rationale to justify it.

 

Of course, this basic plan can be augmented; for example, where appropriate, it can have students actively implementing any course of action they design by the above process.

          If limited to the above steps, an extra point should be made.  Step #7, when used, would take up the bulk of a unit’s time.  In that time, students would be led to see the problem situation from the perspective of different disciplines.  With that line of thought, a teacher can ask and determine:  how are the needs of the subject matter functionally addressed?  That is, how can information be used in solving the problem situation?

          All of this suggests various curriculum goals and objectives.  These will be addressed in the next posting.

---

[1] Fred M. Newman and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy:  An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA:  Little, Brown and Company, 1970).

CONSUMER GOVERNMENT SUBJECT MATTER

If one suggests that the approach to civics education should go through transformative change, one would justifiably be concerned of how smoothly that transition would occur.  This blog has argued that such a change is called for and that more specifically the change should be from what is, an approach theoretically guided by a natural rights point of view (a highly individualistic view) to one guided by a federalist view (a communal view). 

The former argues people can do what they want if they do not interfere with others having the same right.  The latter promotes a sense of partnership among citizens with rights, but also with duties and obligations one attaches to partnership.  The former is dominant today in American culture.  The latter, in a more traditional form, was dominant up until the years after Worle War II.

Of late, this blog suggests that one step that could facilitate such a change is to take on a more modest approach.  That is teaching civics in such a way that sustains many of the natural rights assumptions but shifts the attention of students from the national stage of governance and politics – where it is now – to a more local focus.  That is where a felt community exists.

To achieve such a modest change, this blog suggests a consumer government course of study.  Two postings ago, this blog suggested a set of aims for such a course.[1]  The last posting, “Consumer Government Course Structure” (March 29, 2024), sets out two main structural elements for a consumer government course:  the one instructing students as to the basic structure of government, and the other a set of consumer government problems or issues.  The bulk of the course would be taken up by the latter element.  In terms of this element, that posting stated:

 

At each environmental level [such as the community], the question can be asked:  when dealing at this level, what personal relationships or relations with social institutions (family, education, economy, social class, or government) generate the necessity or the motivation to deal with government?  This process produces, in typical lives, a list of problem areas (e.g., taxes, marital responsibilities, parental issues, income concerns, etc.).

 

To continue in this vein, each issue or problem area (which progresses from local settings to regional, national, and international ones), serves as the main lesson topics of the subject matter.  The suggested list offered below is not an exhaustive one but which, given time and resources, provides in its study adequate student exposure to the varied levels and services of government.

The environmental levels and examples of corresponding problems areas are:

 

1.     Self-home environment – a. marriage; b. child rearing; c. consumer concerns; d. household maintenance; e. health/disease issues.

2.     Neighborhood environment – a. homeowner associations; b. neighbor antagonism and/or complaints; c. school concerns; d. police protection.

3.     Town/city environment – a. employment; b. running a business; c. recreation facilities or needs.

4.     County environment – a. transportation; b. research needs (e.g., water quality); c. suing or being sued.

5.     State environment – a. higher education; b. joining an interest group.

6.     National environment – a. dealing with national corporations; b. consumer protection issues; c. federal safeguards (e.g., regarding airline travel).

7.     International environment – a. traveling abroad issues; b. smuggling; c. political dangers to foreign nations, d. drug trafficking.

 

Perhaps readers can add to this suggested listing.  Since this listing is not all-inclusive, it should be reviewed and updated periodically.  Individual teachers might find it useful to change some items to better meet their local needs.  Of course, any such changes need to meet school standards and secure administrative approval.

          As suggested earlier in this blog, such instruction would be assisted by opting for an instructional strategy where students engage in problem-solving processes and such lessons can be organized by a decision-making model.  The literature is full of such models, this posting will utilize one of the older ones offered by Fred M. Newman and Donald W. Oliver.[2]

          This model deals with case studies in which individuals or groups are presented with moral dilemma situations.  Students are basically called on to express their opinions on what should be done in these situations.  In the process, students must deal with the following questions:

 

1.     Which policies should be adopted or devised – value questions?

2.     Which facts are pertinent – factor questions?

3.     Which concepts best organize one’s concerns – definitional distinctions?

4.     Which theories or models best describe or explain the factors involved – abstracted insights?

 

These questions are derived from relevant disciplinary content or perspectives (such as ethical-legal, political, sociological-anthropological, psychological, historical, economics) and students go about answering them to make rational, informed decisions as to what should be done in each problem situation.

          So, how does this approach look like when implemented at school?  The next posting will describe how this general strategy might unfold in the classroom.  Hopefully, readers who might find value in these strategy points will find the upcoming, potential flow of classroom activities as potential lesson plan ideas to implement the Newman and Oliver strategy.

---

[1] Two postings past, “Aims for Consumer Government Course” (March 26, 2024), suggested a list of aims for such a course.  They are:

1.     To prepare students for normal, social adult life.

2.     To prepare students to identify, protect, and advance their legitimate self-interests.

3.     To prepare students to recognize their social and legal responsibilities.

4.     By the end of their formal education, to develop:

a.      Cognitive skill knowledge that allows them to interact with government agencies in such a way as to generally protect and/or advance their self-interests,

b.     Cognitive skills that allow them to interact in a rational fashion,

c.      Cognitive knowledge of the responsibilities society legitimately expects them to meet, and

d.     Willingness to engage in public discussion that relates to the issues inherent with controversial decision areas where government-citizen interactions are concerned, and moral values are considered.

 

[2] Fred M. Newman and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy:  An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA:  Little, Brown and Company, 1970).