DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT CURRICULUM

Throughout the history of this blog, I have tried to make the case that a civics curriculum guided by the natural rights construct in what content it should include has enabled or, at least, done little to ameliorate the levels of certain unsavory social conditions.  These conditions are low levels of political knowledge, political participation, political skills or the disposition toward developing those skills or attaining that knowledge, low levels of civility, and high levels of criminal behavior.  I have provided reports of evidence and expert opinion to support these contentions.  With this posting, let me add to that list of support.  Let us “listen” to Daniel N. Robinson’s – on the record – lecture:

[Thomas] Jefferson’s writings outside of politics make clear, abundantly clear, and there’s no voice raised to dispute this, that you cannot have this kind of [republican] government except with an educated and instructed people, that the core of republican virtue is education itself.  If I might reflect briefly on our own times, I would say that the deplorable state of education, particularly in the primary and secondary schools, and the rather trite nature of what we are pleased to call higher education, has to be worrisome.  A self-governing people must be particularly adept in weighing arguments and comprehending them, and in uniting their own ideas and contrasting their own ideas with the best that history could produce.  The men assembled in Philadelphia [at the Constitutional Convention in 1787] by and large could do that, and could do it with great agility, though not that many of them had degrees of any sort at all.[1]

I could delve into my overall agreement with Robinson, but instead I want to use this quote to introduce a new topic – educational philosophy.  While this might sound hotsy-totsy, there is a very practical reason for my foray into the subject.  But before I begin, I can’t help saying that if the current presidential campaign doesn’t make Robinson’s point, I don’t know what does.

Anyway, it seems from the tenor of the above quote that that writer ascribes to an educational philosophy known as Perennialism.  Perennialism is one of four overarching educational philosophies and I believe it behooves parents and other citizens to know about these philosophies if they take on the federalist responsibility to engage in what is happening in their children’s schools.  It will not only give such “intrusion” a more knowledgeable foundation, but will also suggest optional courses for what is going on in the schools in question.  I will merely introduce the topic in this posting, but in upcoming entries I will delve further.

The four main philosophies are the aforementioned Perennialism and Essentialism, Progressivism, and Reconstructionism.  I have already in this blog introduced, some time ago, Reconstructionism.  I identified it as critical theory, 1.0.  As a philosophy, this idea takes on a more encompassing definition, but runs in the same direction as I previously indicated.  I will elaborate in an upcoming posting.  There will be amplification on these four.  Of more recent vintage, two more philosophies have been advanced.  They are Eclecticism and the educational form of Existentialism.  Of course the term eclecticism gives away this philosophy or should I write philosophies; that is, they are constructed sets of ideas that borrow from the four main ones identified above.  I would have to admit that what I have promoted in this blog would be considered an expression of Eclecticism, but I would argue that I probably fall, in terms of content, under the Perennialism umbrella and in terms of instruction and instructional strategies under the domain of Progressivism.  If you are a regular reader, as I go through these different schools of thought, you can give me a grade on how true I am to any of these isms.  As for Existentialism, again I have made reference to it when reviewing critical theory.  Some thinkers who have attempted to soften the Marxian influence on critical theory have relied on ideas and ideals from the Existentialist perspective.

Beyond helping one become a better observer and advocate at a given school, there is more to my madness.  Specifically, as when I reviewed several elements of change theory, I would like people to be well “armed” if and when they actively strive to implement a federalist civics program in their communities’ schools.  If in my teacher preparation training I was typical, I was not made aware of these alternative philosophies until graduate school.  Therefore, perhaps what I am about to share can be helpful to many practicing teachers – hopefully so. 

In this blog, my attention has been on secondary schools and their curricula, but that is not to say that a federalist approach could not and should not be implemented at the elementary level.  My hesitation to “go there” is that I do not feel knowledgeable enough to do so.  Whatever expertise I do enjoy concerns secondary education in social studies.

In hopes of enticing you, I do believe the topic of educational philosophy is interesting.  Serious and gifted minds have expended a good deal of effort in its study and I hope to share a relatively small portion of the resulting literature.

---

[1] Robinson, D. N.  (2004).  American ideals:  Founding a “republic of virtue.” [a transcript booklet] Chantilly, VA:  The Teaching Company/The Great Courses. 

WHAT IS BERNIE ABOUT?

It’s Bernie’s turn.  I have, in the last series of postings, taken the occasion of Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for president to revisit a topic this blog addressed some time ago.  Since the candidate professes to be a socialist – a democratic socialist – I thought it was timely to review our history of how we have viewed equality.  Why?  Because socialism is an expression of one of those views and I think it is helpful to place its beliefs alongside the other orientations we as Americans have held in relation to this value.  To date, I have re-described and explained four of these orientations in the order in which they range from the most elitist view to the most egalitarian view.  The first four are genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, and regulated condition.  The fifth orientation is the one Sanders ascribes to and is called equal results.

In order to give you an overall sense of what this orientation believes, let me offer the following definition:  a general belief orientation in which the individual might hold some superior human assets, but that condition, in terms of compensation, mostly entitles the person to limited, higher status.  All monetary compensation should be based on labor value determinations which in practice equates labor efforts with equal monetary compensations.  Also, accumulation of monetary assets is highly restricted to avoid anyone from attaining unequal advantages either financially or politically.  Ideally, distributions of responsibilities are to be based on merit, which includes faithfulness to the equal condition doctrine.  Of course, this is in its purest form.  All policies that would be needed to apply this definition in its entirety would have to be legislated in a democratic socialist system – which is what Sanders professes.  In addition, it is still unclear how “pure” Sanders is.  Even with a long political career, his exact stand on many issues lacks specificity.  The campaign will surely dot some of the “i”s and cross some of the “t”s.  But let me flesh out some of the ideas composing this orientation.

In the last posting, I presented the basic ideas proposed by the late philosopher, John Rawls.  His two main relevant ideas regarding equality are (1) the notion that justice is the product of a people/group establishing the basic rules of their arrangement when no one knows beforehand what his/her status will be once the arrangement is formulated and (2) that once one analyzes the reasons for anyone’s success, one can only attribute limited attribution to a person’s effort for said success.  Both of these factors lead one to limit any compensation one is apt to receive relative to market determinations.  Last, Rawls argues for assistance for those not so privileged under the consideration that life can and does visit misfortune on potentially anyone – “there but for the grace of God go I.”[1]  If we take the ideas of John Rawls and like-minded thinkers to a heightened degree, we still approximate the fifth orientation, equal results.

Advocates of equal results hold that since people have little control over the abilities they enjoy, they should not be entitled to any financial benefits beyond those that others are able to secure.  In terms of our economic system, not only are those with rare gifts in high demand skill areas compensated way above what they deserve, they can accumulate such financial benefits – accumulate capital assets, that is – and use them to further their advantage to the detriment of those not so advantaged.[2]  This is, in the equal results advocates view, immoral because it is basically unfair.

The beliefs of the equal results orientation are:

1.     A person’s abilities are primarily developed from social conditions over which the person has little to no control.  Therefore, a person who is able to secure a very high income is taking advantage of benefits he or she had little to do with in acquiring them.

2.     A person’s rewards for work should not reflect the randomness in the distribution of skills with which some might be blessed and should, therefore, in order to be fair, be pretty much the same as that of others.

3.     The height of unfairness in capitalist economic arrangements is that some can earn in a few days what takes others to save in a lifetime.

4.     We pay very little attention to a person’s merit, as a person, in determining what rewards he or she is able to acquire.  Instead, we focus on marketable skills or other arbitrary assets that a person has.

5.      All people’s labors are fundamentally equal and the pay received should not vary much.  The only difference among their labors is simply that they are different.  Highly paid workers or business owners are not the only providers of hard work.  Laborers also work very hard.  Therefore, labor should be more or less seen in terms of equal value.  An example: the movie star who performs in front of a camera should not make so much more than the cameraman or woman who works behind the camera. Both are equally responsible for the product produced.

You might think these beliefs are highly un-American.  Well, not so fast.  There have been prominent Americans who have espoused such views or views that are similar.  Eugene V. Debs comes to mind; he was a prominent labor leader and presidential candidate in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.  Don't get me wrong; his views were never that popular, yet he did represent a tradition of thought that harkens back to political thinkers of the past from the more obscure John Ruskin to, at least to some degree, Henry David Thoreau.

Of course, there are Marxian-socialist ideals contained within these beliefs, but they also can be found in the works of Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi.  In America, such beliefs seem to have gotten more traction during times of extreme exploitation of laborers, such as during the industrial revolution of the late 1800s, or during harsh economic times in the Great Depression.  More recently, as I am indicating in this series of postings, Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign has attracted many followers. Reported disparities currently characterizing our income and wealth distributions might have something to do with Sanders’ popularity.  The results of today’s primary election in New Hampshire will indicate how popular the Vermont senator is among the Granite State’s Democrats. 

All socialists, at least to some degree, espouse Marxian principles.  For a dramatization of such advocacy, see the film, Reds, starring Warren Beatty, who was also the film's producer and director.  Many adherents to these beliefs have derived them from religious teachings as in the case of Tolstoy and his view of Christianity.  Others, like Marx himself, view such beliefs in a more “scientific” fashion, claiming that economic realities will evolve or erupt into a system where such beliefs will take actual form in resulting social and economic relations and institutions.

Let me focus a bit on Karl Marx, considered the father of socialism.  Influenced by the philosopher Hobbes, Karl Marx saw the eventuality of a socialist state – one in which productive property would be owned in common – as inevitable.  In his view, the development of society is simply the product of deterministic laws in which people, following their nature of being hedonistic egoists - a la Hobbes – are just pursuing their selfish interests.  This pits people in antagonistic relationships, according to the economic classes in which they find themselves.  In the case of socialism, this inevitable system will take hold as a result of the conflict among the business class, the bourgeois, and the laborers, the proletariat.  The proletariat will prevail according to Marx – a “scientific” eventuality.

In terms of policy, such a takeover, if past socialist programs are an indication, will call for a stronger to a much stronger presence of government in the operations of our economy.  For example, Sanders is calling for free college tuition and a single payer system of healthcare.  The single payer will be government and that calls for higher taxes.  If his other goals follow the socialist lead, we can anticipate his presidency to seek other programs where government involvement will call for even higher taxes.  He often cites the fact that other advanced countries provide for certain public services.  He often reminds us that we are the only advanced country that does not provide universal healthcare.  If you compare tax rates between those countries and ours, ours are a lot lower.  According to Tax Policy Center, in 2008, tax rates of many European countries are 40 percent of GDP, while the US is 7 percent of GDP.[3]

In a capitalist nation, equal compensation would be approached, more than likely, through taxation instead of mandating equalized pay schedules.  Someone’s gross pay might be quite a bit higher than someone else’s, but after taxes the effective pay rate will be more equal.  In so doing, we would approach, if not reach, the Marxian principle:  “From each according to his [her] ability, to each according to his [her] needs.”  For those who live by this dictum, he or she is worthy of higher status among his/her comrades.  Whether or not this represents Bernie Sanders’ thinking, I’m sure the upcoming campaign will give us a clearer understanding of how Marxian Sanders is.

---

[1] Of course, you are welcome to visit the last posting to read a lengthier description of Rawl’s ideas.

[2] In a recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist, Thomas Piketty, argues that due to the accumulation of capital, there has developed an entrenched class that is benefiting from the income based on that capital.  See Piketty, T.  (2014).  Capital in the Twenty-First Century.  Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press.

[3] See  www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing.../international.cfm .