A COSTLY SHIFT

This blog, of late, revisited what it means when it claims that the nation’s civics curriculum is guided by the natural rights construct.  To restate this basic claim:  the nation, in the years following World War II, shifted in its basic view of government and politics from one which held as dominant a federalist view to one that can be designated as the natural rights view. 

That shift has been so extensive that the natural rights construct is guiding the content choices of the nation’s civics curriculum in its schools.  This blog has attempted to provide evidence for this claim.  More recently, this evidence has included a look at civics standards and at the textbooks used in both American government and civics courses.

In practical terms, what does that mean?  The primary effect is an overall trend to promote a consumer orientation to citizenship.  This trend is counter to the federalist view that emphasizes a more communal view, one that heightens a sense of partnership among the citizenry.  A federalist bent sees government as an extension of themselves, while a natural rights view sees government as a provider of collective or public services.

With this shift, a people has other goals and aims than were prevalent in an earlier era.  It is useful to know and understand this newer bias.  One can detect, in the literature, that natural rights educators pursue the following goals:

•      teach the structural components of government (such as the Presidency)

•      teach a view of government as a subservient institution which attempts to satisfy the collective interests of individual citizens

•      teach the philosophical basis of government’s role as defender of individual rights, placing the emphasis on the individual to the minimization of collective interests

•      convey the legitimate needs of government to encourage and facilitate degrees of support among the populous so that political stress within the political system can be kept at manageable and even useful levels

•      portray a realistic account of politics within the nation so that students will be able to reasonably interact with governmental agencies and offices to pursue their political demands in ways akin to a consumer seeking any good or service

•      express the technical nature of political activity with ample respect for political expertise of professionals which includes elected officials and bureaucrats

By accomplishing these goals, the natural rights argument holds that the subject matter of government and civics, its knowledge and skills, will be presented in such a way as to advance good citizenship.  As far as it goes, the writer has little argument with the natural rights perspective.  His concern lies more with the lack of its comprehensiveness. 

Being a limited view, the resulting curriculum robs students of a sense of partnership among citizens to work toward a more perfect union.  Instead, the ultimate message is:  here in this course, the student will be taught what he/she needs to know to be able to seek satisfaction for any reasonable demand.  Little to no concern or information is offered as to the richness that a more collective view offers and with that, there is little to no concern for social capital.

Again, relying on the definition of Robert Putnam, social capital means having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[1]  This sense is what a more federalist approach tried to convey in the earlier years of the republic.

Instead, what a natural rights guided curriculum relays is:  here is what a student needs to know to compete for what a government can provide.  While this latter information is practical, it does not, in the opinion of this writer, convey what a viable democracy needs to convey to the younger generation.  This blog has attempted to describe what have been the consequences of this shift.

---

[1] Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone:  America's Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy, January, pp. 65-78.

REVIEWING THE MAGRUDER CASE

In the last posting, the point was made that typical teachers see their jobs as conveying the information contained in a course’s textbook.  That reality places the textbook as defining curricular content for any given course.  In the case of high school government, the textbook that is overwhelmingly used is Magruder’s American Government textbook.[1] 

So, if one wants to ascertain the content of government at the high school level, reviewing the content in Magruder’s would give one that information.  On the other hand, if one wanted to do the same for the middle school level, one could look at comparable civics textbooks, for example Glencoe Civics Today:  Citizenship, Economics, and You.[2] 

In addition to this Glencoe book, there are various textbooks that are popular and widely used at the middle school level.[3]  In all cases, the choice of a book is left to the district.

In considering this relationship between curricular content and textbook content, one should understand that teachers are not generally mindful of how the text reflects a curricular choice; they just know that the book is what they have been given to teach the course in question. 

The following description will indicate that more is involved in this choice.  In what follows, this writer is attempting to get at the assumed motivation the authors, publishers, and adopters of the text had in mind when Magruder’s for high school students was chosen. 

Further, the writer has selected a singular topic that he feels reflects a social capital concern.  He indicates how this text, Magruder’s, treats that topic as this will be an efficient way of determining how much this text addresses this central concept.  The writer feels that Social Security is particularly suitable. 

Below, this posting will outline how this textbook covers Social Security, but before that description is offered, it is useful to contextualize this information.  This posting looks at three concerns:  how does the text handle the topic of citizenship, how does the text provide information about factors associated with social capital such as community, and why does the review select Social Security?

To begin, one does not find citizenship, an important aspect of civic instruction, within the general text of the book.  Instead, scattered among its pages is a series of inserts entitled “Citizenship 101.”  As such, the message is that this topic is a supplement to what is important. 

The inserts contain several descriptive accounts that give general advice, usually in perfunctory language, on common activities available to citizens.[4]  This writer finds this treatment of citizenship to be easily ignored or lost as a teacher works through the content of the book.  This aspect of the text is very telling as it betrays a lack of concern or real commitment toward encouraging an active citizenship.  

Adding to this context, the rest of the text further avoids social capital concerns.  For example, the text has few or no words to describe or otherwise treat the following concepts which are deemed to be supportive of social capital: community, community development, neighborhoods, charities, or non-profit organizations; that is, one cannot find these topics in the text’s index. 

And a final contextual concern is to answer the question of why Social Security?  It was chosen because it is felt to be the most interpersonal program that the Federal Government runs, especially its retirement program.  In effect, the program has one segment of the population providing for another.  It works by collecting a FICA[5] tax from those young enough to work and uses those funds to provide benefits for the older generation that is of retirement age. 

In short, Social Security is an intergenerational compact.  By setting up this compact, the Federal Government unites the interests of citizens to be closer together and by doing so, potentially encourages a more tangible sense of partnership among the citizenry.  And yet, one would be hard-pressed to find citizens who would describe Social Security with a language that would convey this sense of social capital at work. 

Few citizens seem to understand this basic relationship.  Instead, Americans speak of the program as something providing benefits they are due because they paid into it all their working years.  They see it as a forced savings program.  This is not an accurate depiction.

Many would be surprised, for example, to know that if a person lives a normal lifespan, he/she will most likely receive more in benefits than if the taxes were voluntarily saved and accrued normal interest returns.[6]  Yet the program’s essence of being this demonstrable partnership – or an element of one – seems to go un-noticed. 

With that context, how does Magruder’s describe this program?  On page 289, it points out that members of Congress are covered by Social Security;

Circa page 440 informs that Social Security is an independent agency and is not housed in one of the “Cabinet” departments;

 It describes on page 460 that Social Security is a social insurance program funded by a social insurance tax;

On page 461, it classifies the FICA tax as a regressive tax; that is, it is a “flat” tax up to a certain income level and income above that amount is not taxed;

 Finally, on page 469, the book explains that the program, as an entitlement program, has “uncontrollable” expenditures.  That means that the monies are automatically spent without having to secure new authorization.[7]

This last point is, of course, only partly true in that this spending can be controlled – increased, limited, or eliminated – if the law that authorizes the program is changed by Congress. That’s unlikely, given the popularity of the program among the citizenry.  Such a move would be political suicide for those who would fundamentally threaten Social Security. 

In sum, Magruder’s does not describe the interpersonal or intergenerational foundation of the program, much less explain it and, due to the lack of such instruction, little is done to inform and encourage a more “partnered” view of Social Security.  This, of course, enables, in part, the misunderstanding of the program described above.

So, overall, Magruder’s, as demonstrated by this limited evidence, does little to promote social capital.  It, instead, promotes a natural rights view.  If one is encouraged to look at the textbook and see if he/she agrees with this assessment, the book can be easily obtained by acquiring it at just about any public high school.

One should have a list of governmental departments or agencies in mind when reviewing the book.  He or she should go back to the index and look at how extensive and in what manner that part of the government is explained.  An overall question in such a review can be:  does this description review a government policy or program that reflects the voice of the people of the United States or is it described as a bureaucratic based public service that is there for the consumption by citizens? 

For those in favor of promoting social capital, the above would probably be disheartening.  It begs the question:  should Magruder’s be gotten rid of?  Definitely not.  The book is a good reference book and that’s how it should function in the classroom. 

As a “go-to” source for structural information about what agencies and departments exist and make up the government, the text can be of recurring value.  What a teacher, though, should keep to his/her counsel is what direction the course he/she teaches should follow.

Whether that teacher uses an approach that attempts to bolster social capital or not, that decision is one that should be made for a particular time, class, and school.[8]  In most cases, this writer believes that’s the way a course should be guided.

---

[1] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[2] Richard C. Remy, John J. Patrick, David C. Saffell, and Gary E. Clayton.  Glencoe Civics Today:  Citizenship, Economics, and You.  New York, NY:  McGraw Hill Glencoe, 2008.

[3] See James E. Davis, Peter Woll, and Phyllis M. Fernlund, Civics:  Government and Economics in Action (Upper Saddle River, NJ:  Prentice Hall Publisher, 2009) AND William H. Hartley and William S. Vincent, W. S., Holt American Civics (New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 2003).

[4] Given the overall challenge of “teaching” an almost 800-page textbook in fewer than 18 weeks, it is hard to imagine that these inserts get much attention.

[5] FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

[6] Louis Jacobson, “Medicare and Social Security:  What You Paid Compared with What You Get,” PolitiFact accessed September 11, 2016.  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met er/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/.

[7] Willian A. McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013).

[8] This is not to say that district or state authorities should not issue a curriculum.  But no matter how extensive such efforts are, there is always quite a bit of leeway teachers have interpreting these authoritative dictums.