I
have, in this blog, argued that a civics curriculum should adopt a
naturalist approach to value/moral content – that, by doing so,
civics instruction can avoid blatant promulgation of a definite
political agenda. In other words, such instruction can be said to
not indoctrinate students to particular politically biased content.
Understandably, parents and citizens, in general, should be concerned
with a public school curriculum that attempts to foster a particular
brand of politics. But this approach is not without its perils.
Complete
neutrality is beyond possibility. I write this due not to our innate
biases as educators. Yes, that is a factor, but the extent of the
problem is more fundamental. When one goes about designing an
organized set of ideas by which to write a curriculum, decisions have
to be made. Two central areas of decisions have to do with the
curriculum designer's views on learning and on content. My focus
here is the effect that decisions have on content. As currently
practiced, most teachers simply adjust to the content perspective
offered by the textbook they are handed. This book in turn is chosen
– the term is adopted – through a fairly sophisticated process
which in our country is run by the state government and the local
school districts. Many interested parties provide input from the
community. In terms of civics, as I have pointed out many times, the
mostly unquestioned consensus is to adopt texts that are guided in
their selection of content by a perspective I have called the natural
rights construct. That construct heavily supports a strongly based
commitment to individualism at the expense of communal biases. I
have tried to document how this current choice became prominent about
sixty years ago when, in the post World War II years, the nation
abandoned the traditional federalist view that had been prominent
since the beginning of the nation.
I
have argued that we should now abandon this self-serving
individualist view for a more updated version of federalist thought –
the liberated federalism construct. As part of this other proposed
view, resulting classroom materials should be based on a set of
values whose aim is to strengthen communal ties, but which includes
an element promoting a strong, participating individual. That view
of individualism does not short-shrift the person's self interests,
but situates them within the context of equality and communal
necessities which in turn advance societal well-being.
I
have also argued that when it comes to values education, a curriculum
should count on a consequentialist, as opposed to a precept, view of
values. That is, the good should be defined by the consequences of
action, not by some preconceived claim of goodness and evil. By
counting on consequences, one is more strongly directed to implement
an instructional strategy that has students conduct moral inquiries.
With
what questions should such inquiry be concerned? Let me review some
concerns that are suggested by Philip Selznick.1
First, what personal qualities are useful, if not needed, to carry
out such inquiries? Here the concern is the dispositions of
individuals, associations, and communities. What is needed to carry
out a values inquiry is a desire for the genuine, stable, and
enduring as opposed to the superficial and intolerant. Second, what
is the functional balance in a given moral challenge between the
particular elements of the situation under analysis and its
representative quality of universal moral concerns? While each
situation has particular factors affecting moral choice, it, by
necessity, has recognizable moral deficiencies so judged by universal
standards. Such standards are reflective of conditions that
undermine communal well-being. History tells us that dishonesty,
vented anger, abuse, and the like are the types of behaviors that
lead to fractured social structures. Third, what insights do related
fields – social science, history, moral philosophy – tell us
about what is moral or what is the least evil in the situation
studied? For example:
A
social science of moral ordering draws on a rich tradition of
philosophical thought, from which it gains a steady focus on the
core values at stake in moral experience, especially
responsibility, autonomy, integrity, reason, fairness, equality; and
on recurrent perplexities and tensions, for example, those
affecting the determination of obligation and self-interest, formal
and substantive justice, moral and social equality.2
Fourth,
how does the situation provide us the opportunity to advance and
balance our views concerning the real and the ideal? We need to
abandon any attempt to disengage our beliefs and emotions from either
reality or idealism – both are essential for promoting self or
communal well-being. While there is a distinction between the two,
to claim we are concerned with one without the other or that we favor
one over the other is foolish and narrow-minded.
But
as one goes through these questions, one needs to hold fast to the
notion that what one is calling on students to do is to inquire.
Built into the questions a teacher would ask is the question of
whether or not the inquiry itself is legitimate. The initial
questions need to be justified and open to critical review. In a
word, nothing is taken for granted or as reflecting an intolerance of
intellectual curiosity.
1Selznick,
P. (1992). The moral
commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2Ibid.,
quotation on p. 37, emphasis in the original.
