FEDERALIST COURSE OF STUDY

Since the beginning of the this blog, I have been promoting a newer curricular view, one based on a mental construct I have dubbed liberated federalism. The curricular area in question has been civics or government. I have dedicated many postings to going over the different elements of this mental construct and you are invited to hit the archive feature and see past postings or visit the website, gravitasarchives.blogspot.com to review those descriptions and explanations. This other site has a listing of ninety – to date – postings that I have deleted from the site you are on now. Just to give you some context, this blog began on September 6, 2010. While I have commented extensively about the theoretical content of the construct, I have not written about how a civics or government course, based on a liberated federalist view, would be organized; that is, how the units of study would be arranged in such a course. In this posting, I will address this topic.

There are several options for how such a course could be arranged and these options call for different preparations of which curricular workers, school administrators, and teachers need to be aware. Let me start by confessing that I don't see a vast change over to a federalist approach as being imminent. It's not even on anyone's radar. The most I could hope for is that a teacher here and there is taken by liberated federalism and decides: “You know, I feel that this construct could be helpful in my class. It is a useful way to look at governance and politics and I'm going to incorporate federalist concerns into my lesson plans.” That teacher would begin to notice that many of the generally discussed issues of the day have a federalist side to them. He or she might be motivated to insert questions or research topics that reflect federalist concerns. In many of my postings, I write my pieces with this type of teacher in mind. That is, I address some contemporary issue and describe and explain it from the federalist perspective. Now I must add a clarifying statement – it's one that regular readers of this blog will find familiar. But for new readers, by stating that civics material should be guided by liberated federalism, I am not using the term federalism as it is usually used. Usually, people who refer to federalism are talking about the structural arrangement between the central and state governments. While this is an aspect of federalism, on a more theoretical level, federalism refers to people coming together for a purpose and agreeing to remain united, under the auspices of a covenant or compact, no matter what any individual member might do. In this blog, in short, I usually become aware of some problem or event that endangers the federal union of which we are all a part – the good old USA. I try to explain what the situation is and then I try to make the connection to federalist thought explicit. By doing so, I am justifying the inclusion of the issue or event by an educator into his/her plans – class time is a limited resource and should not be taken up by whimsical concerns a teacher or some student might have. Perhaps this – a sporadic teacher taking up the cause – is the extent to which I can realistically hope that federalist ideas might make it into our classrooms. But let me be idealistic and project more thought-out curricular options.

Option one: Maintain existing course structures and use federalist issues to illustrate how our system of governance operates throughout the course. The advantage of this option is that classroom teachers could not only use standard civics and government textbooks, but could also probably finesse any needed accommodations with curriculum policy of the school district and/or state department of education – not that such a level of supervision is common enough to engender such a concern. What might be changed with this option is the questions that students would be asked to answer. Most textbook questions are written by curriculum workers who are influenced by natural rights thinking. There, the emphasis would be on functional concerns: what is the function of a particular element of the system (e. g., department, agency, voter, political party, etc.)? How well has this element performed its function? What recurring problems does this element face in performing its functions? What changes/reforms are being considered regarding this element? These types of questions lack normative concerns other than a concern for efficiency in meeting various governmental functions by the government itself or by some person or group that deals with government.

A liberated federalist approach would ask more normative questions: how is this element meant to advance social capital; that is, a society characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation? What are the relationships among the different players within a particular element – promoting mutual interests or promoting competitive interests? What is the social environment within which an element functions? Is it one of trust, cooperation or of acrimony, deception? I can add many more questions, but I believe you get the drift. Of course, the exact questions would depend on the federalist issues under discussion and/or analysis.

Option two: Forget the textbook and the structure that the textbook outlines for the course and develop a course entirely on federalist priorities. Here is where I am a bit in a quandary. If you give up on the existing structure, you have to invent one. Here's my first try. Begin with each element of a federal union from the most basic to the most complicated. From the individual – the most basic, but still complicated – to international arrangements such as the UN. Let me present a list of these elements and an accompanying federalist issue for each upon which a unit of study could focus:

• The individual – short term interests vs. long term interests
• The family – the effects of divorce
• The neighborhood – responsibilities toward problem children
• A small business – treatment of employees
• A labor association (such as a union) – efficiency practices or product quality
• A large corporation – product safety
• A local government (either city or county) – zoning or racial/ethnic divisions
• Law enforcement agency – judicial rights applicable to an accused
• White House – federalist meaning of leadership
• Congress – the extent that money is influential
• The courts – the role of interpreting a federalist compact
• Society during wartime – special demands on citizenship
• International association – levels of interdependence between nations

That makes thirteen units to be covered in an eighteen week semester at the high school level. Middle school civics courses last the entire academic year, so the list can be longer or each item can demand more time (or a combination of the two). The point is that a purely federalist approach gives low priority toward “teaching” the structure of government, per se, and a higher concern for the federalist character of our government and our society. I assume the structure becomes instrumental in dealing with these issues and that students will learn the structure as a matter of course. By taking this approach, units of study would incorporate the type of questions I listed above. But in this option, the overall aim is to have students know, understand, and appreciate the bonding among citizens that our form of government demands and how the related political activity under analysis advances or detracts from those demands. Many of my postings relate to situations in which I believe some people are not living up to the compact that forms our federated union. These are offered, in part, to help any teacher who wants to walk on the federalist side.

PRAYING WE DON'T REPEAT A MISTAKE

Do you agree that you have the right to practice your religion no matter what the majority of your neighbors' religious beliefs are? Do you think the state has the right to promote religious beliefs with which you might not agree – how about those with which you agree? The history of our constitutional thought has led us to at least voice the opinion that there should be a separation between church and state. Not all of us seem to agree with this, but generally, if asked, Americans think the best policy for government is is to stay away from attacking or promoting any religious belief or activity. This tradition began way back and is a product of a history of violence between religious zealots and their political spokespersons, including kings, dukes, and powerful noblemen. In the western world, the Treaty of Westphalia began a long string of compromises that finally led to our more modern view. A lot of blood bought us our more accommodating and tolerant view of others' religions. Should we hold vigilance against any back-tracking and/or look the other way when those who want to push their views about the supernatural among not only their fellow believers but the rest of us seem to be getting their way?

In Florida – a recurring site for so many of our current troubling news – we have a program that tests our commitment to this modern view. The governmental program provides vouchers to families so that they can send their children to private schools. The glitch is that these public funds, for over 80% of the 60,000 youngsters involved, go to religious schools. The goal is not subtle; it's to promote religious morals among the impressionable students. The reason this is a current issue is that the state legislature is considering expanding the $300 million program. Under the control of conservative Republicans, the bill will probably successfully make its way through the Legislature and be signed by Governor Rick Scott.

Given our constitution's First Amendment with its sanction against the establishment of religion by the state, how can such a program be legal? There are two cases that seem to give such a program the green light. The first is Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris in which the Supreme Court found such a program – one existing in Cleveland – to be constitutional. In doing so, the Court established a five element test for such programs. They ruled the Cleveland program okay because it met the following requirements: (1) program has to have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) needs to provide assistance to parents, with no funds going directly to schools, (3) must have a “broad class” of beneficiaries – as opposed to a specific group(s), (4) the vouchers must not be reserved for a particular religion and, therefore, favor any one faith, and (5) the program must be offered where there are sufficient non-religious options. A second case, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization vs. Winn, limits who can bring suits against such programs. This case was thrown out because it was brought by taxpayers, per se, and they did not have standing – any one taxpayer does not have enough skin in the game to claim enough harm. In the case of Cleveland, the program was initially geared to help low income parents get their kids into schools other than the low preforming public schools and, therefore, judged to be secular in its intent.

But in Florida, we see the proponents tip their hands with the new proposal before the Legislature. They want the expansion of the state's program to include parents with incomes over $60,000 a year. The median household income in Florida in 2012 was $47,000. So one can question this expansion's “valid secular” purpose. As Pasco County pastor, Alfred Johnson, proclaimed, “[t]hese programs are bringing an angle that the public schools cannot …”.¹ A delegation of parents, students, and teachers appeared at a legislative hearing that discussed the proposed expansion. They are reported to have “praised the existing program as a lifeline for families seeking an alternative to public schools, either to escape crowded schools or to attend a school that emphasizes religious values.”²

Individually, I am offended by this program. But that's me. I can't claim that it sends us back to those days when believers of different faiths fought over religious disagreements. It does, though, begin a process that could potentially lead to more virulent relations among the faithful. It also spends tax money of those who do not believe in any religion; I can't see where these people would not see the program as promoting religion – the program simply does that no matter how secular the original purpose of such a program is. This can be questioned in terms of justice. It serves to undermine and corrupt a governance based on equal protection. Atheists are not being equally protected by such a program especially when the law is intended to “bringing an angle that the public schools cannot.” In short, the program is dangerous and we all, including the religious, should be wary of its effect on our level of tolerance for those who do or don't agree with us when it comes to other worldly beliefs.

1Fineout, G. (2014). Private school voucher bill moves ahead. The Tallahassee Democrat, March 9, p. 15A. The facts of the Florida program reported in this posting are derived from this Associated Press article. Emphasis added.

2Ibid.