This blog has
made the claim that in the years following World War II, the nation, in its
perspective of governance and politics, shifted. Until that time, ever since colonial days,
the dominant perspective was the mental construct this writer entitles traditional
federalism. The blog defines, describes,
and explains this view and the effect it had on the American political feelings
and behaviors during all those many years.
Since the mid-1940s, another mental
construct became dominant: the natural
rights construct. Of late, this blog has
reviewed the effects of this construct on civics education, political science,
and the social/political realities of the nation. With this posting, a look at a more formal
evaluation of civics education is presented with commentary on how the natural
rights view affects that evaluation.
More specifically, this posting attempts to convey an understanding
of how natural rights exerts its influence by reviewing existing standards that,
in turn, have been used to develop test questions. Specifically, the focus is on the National Assessment
Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program known as the Nation's Report Card.[1]
By selecting NAEP testing program, this writer chooses a program
that has made efforts to address the more mechanical aspects of a natural
rights-based curricular work (this mechanical quality was described in the last
posting). He sees NAEP testing program
to be in an evolving process which is moving toward a more community-based view
of the subject matter it is testing. It
is through such a change that a more amenable effort to supporting social
capital is achieved.
But to date, this testing program, as represented by its standards,
has not changed enough. Overall, its
standards do not yet promote social capital – the standard this blog has
offered by which to judge whether any element of the nation’s civics curricular
effort is worthwhile.
Having stated that limitation of NAEP, the judgment here is that with
the latest edition of the standards, issued in 2014, one can see progress over previous
editions – they do demonstrate a recognition that an attention to communal
factors is something for which the nation’s civics curriculum should strive.
For
example, the 2014 set of standards highlights values that can be considered as addressing
social capital concerns. That list
consists of civility,
respect for the rights of others, respect for law, negotiation and compromise,
civic mindedness, and compassion.[2] To be clear, these values are a subset of the
overall values the standards promote – thirteen of them. Be that as it may, their addition demonstrates
more concern for communal qualities.
To further heighten its concern for
community, the newer document contains throughout its pages an array of quotes
from historical characters who communicate civil and democratic values. These quotes can be seen to further encourage
educators to promote social capital. That
is great, but this is seen, by this writer, as only a step in the right
direction. More can be done.
How are the newer standards
deficient? The standards do refer to values
ensconced in the nation’s and states’ constitutions. But those values are more supportive of structural
elements of government. For example, one
such value is the distributive value of power as demonstrated by a two-tiered
government and the checks and balance system, but one does not see any direct effort
to bolster communal ties which provide essential support to a federal system of
government.
And while the 2014 version of the
NAEP standards identifies values that not only support constitutional
principles but also, to a limited extent, social capital, the problem is that
this more general support of these qualities is not meaningfully worked into
the wordage of the standards themselves.
They are offered as background “music” and are there to provide guidance
about how one is to interpret the standards.
Nor are these values reflected in a well-thought
out rationale for their use. That is,
these values are listed without any explanation of how they are useful in encouraging
trust and cooperation, essential supportive motivations upon which social
capital depends.
And while the above “social capital”
values are notable, they are not the only ones that could have been chosen. There are more direct or important prerequisite
values in establishing a level of civic responsibility innate in a polity that
holds social capital essential to its health.
Such values as empathy, trust, friendship, loyalty, and a sense of
partnership among citizens are but a few values aimed more directly toward
bolstering social capital.
In short, despite its more communal
turn, the 2014 version of the standards does not sufficiently express a “we're
in this together” message. Unfortunately,
the current language of the NAEP is judged to be more perfunctory than
reflecting a true adoption of a federated view of governance, politics, and
citizenship.
But the NAEP standards is a national
effort. What about the state level? At that more local level, where standards
have real consequences for students – in some states they are used to see whether
a student passes a grade or not – one finds a stronger natural rights
bias. Readers can “Google” the state
standards for their state; the writer did so for the state of Florida.
Compared to the NAEP language,
Florida’s language reflects a more uncompromised systems approach as it bolsters
a structural and functional perspective.
It has more definite provisions that segregate the citizenry from its
government, in that it describes government as a third-party service provider. In addition, those standards emphasize the
structural elements of government in stark language without communicating any communal
concerns.[3]
Before leaving this topic, there is another important aspect to
this description. Textbooks are chosen
at the state level. Nothing shows off a
curriculum more than a review of the textbooks used in the classroom. That includes civics education. If a parent or other taxpayer wants to know
what the curriculum of a subject is, he or she need only look at the textbook
used and it will uncover what the curricular content, the scope, of that
subject, is.[4]
In doing so, a course’s textbook will reveal, with a review of the
topics its pages choose to include and the questions the text asks of the
material, which mental construct is guiding the choice of content for that subject. That includes civics courses. As for high school government classes, the
textbook that is overwhelmingly used is Magruder’s
American Government textbook.[5] This blog’s review will next look at the
effect Magruder’s has had in
government classes.
[1] In full disclosure, this writer, about ten years ago,
through the efforts of Dr. John Patrick, worked on a committee whose assignment
was to evaluate proposed test questions for NAEP’s next administration of its
test to measure civics knowledge among secondary students. This test is given to a random sample of
students around the country. Through the
results, educators can gain a sense of how well the nation’s civics instruction
is doing.
[2] “National Standards for Civics and Government,” Center
for Civic Education, accessed September 7, 2016, http://www.civiced.org/standards?page=912erica#15 .
[3] “Fundamentals of Government and Public
Administration,” Florida State Department of Education, accessed September 7,
2016, http://fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5574/urlt/8900500.pdf .
[4] The reason for this is that teachers see their
responsibility as teaching the textbook they have been given to use in the
course of study assigned to them.
[5] Willian A. McClenaghan,
Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston,
MA: Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment