The professional organization of social studies educators is the
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
This writer is a former member.
Retirement tends to loosen such bonds.
He was a member roughly from 1970 till 2007. His feelings concerning the organization is
mostly positive. He does wish them well.
Recently, it
came to his attention that the NCSS issued a publication which attempts to set
forth a policy position regarding the Common Core Standards – a US Department
of Education effort – to encourage state departments of education to upgrade
their state standards. Apparently, the
concern is that since the US must compete in a global economy, its education
should be comparable to those of other advanced countries. The issuance of the Common Core Standards is
a way for the federal government to promote a better posture in that
competition.
Recent reviews as to that
comparability between the US and other nations have not been encouraging. The US, in various ranking estimations across
the various subject areas, has not been stellar. While different
reports vary somewhat, the US ranks about seventeenth in its schools’ success
rate when compared to other national systems.[1] So, there has been pressure from numerous
sources to improve the nation’s educational efforts. One specific demand is that state’s need to
improve their standards – they are lacking or so the critics claim.
There is an obstacle to the federal
government just upgrading these standards.
Under the nation’s constitutional makeup, the power to run educational
systems is reserved to the states. That
makes the federal role a bit tricky. The
federal government can issue standards and suggest states adopt them. This adoption can vary in terms of how
extensively they are utilized. In the
case of social studies, the story is a bit more complicated.
Yes, the federal government has
issued the aforementioned standards. Common
Core standards are issued in terms of various subject areas: English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and
Science. Missing? Social Studies, which is usually treated as a
core subject area in most secondary schools.
But they are not totally overlooked; they are indirectly included. They function as a source of content material
for English/Language Arts standards. In
the past two postings this role is characterized as a “backdoor” role.
The current effort of this blog is to
provide some critical judgement of this role, in general, and of the standards
the NCSS’ publication provides. That
publication is being referred to as the C3
Framework.[2] The last two postings began this critique by
reviewing the C3 organizing
principles. Now, the blog turns to the
substantive portions. Here is an
introductory statement of the body of the publication:
Introduction
in the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for social studies state
standards, the call for students to become more prepared for the challenges of
college and career is united with a third critical element: preparation for civic life. Advocates of citizenship education cross the
political spectrum, but they are bound by a common belief that our democratic
republic will not sustain unless students are aware of their changing cultural
and physical environments; know the past; read, write, and think deeply; and
act in ways that promote the common good.
There will always be differing perspectives on these objectives. The goal of knowledgeable, thinking, and active
citizens, however, is universal.[3]
Perhaps one can interpret this as a summary statement of the
project’s principles.
It, though, stands as more
substantive than the five principles this blog shared in its previous two
postings. This determination is made not
because it is substantive enough, only that it is more so. At least, this statement identifies an
aim. Apparently, students need to do all
the listed activities, e.g., know the past, for a purpose. That is to advance the common good. Of course, the next concern would be: what constitutes the common good? Again, this is the type of philosophical element
that a summary or introductory statement should address.
Without such a philosophical
commitment, one is left with a circular argument: the common good is seeking the common good. Is the common good what most people think is
the common good? Is it one in which the
economy grows irrespectively of how that growth is distributed? Is it advancing democratic norms – perhaps
moving toward dismantling such an institution as the electoral college (given
its anti-democratic character)?
This writer suspects that the
defenders of the publication would state that such questions get into content
and the efforts of the developers of the C3
Framework were to only provide an outline toward a more demanding
curriculum, leaving content issues to the states. If this is the case, the judgement here is
the effort is not worth the time used to develop this document. Part of the problem with any deficiencies
with social studies is its content.
Those who have tried to reform social studies – for decades – have seen
the problem as only being one of instruction, but that is a short shrift of the
entailed problems.
The message of this blog has been that,
yes, instruction is deficient, but more central to the woes of social studies is
the problem of a content component that is reluctant to meet responsibly and meaningfully
such questions as: what is the common
good? Further, this shortcoming is part
and parcel of the establishment’s avoidance of such questions due to its
reliance on the natural rights construct to determine its content decisions. The above introductory statement presents
itself as transcending ideological bias, but it is not. It is partial toward market values.
To offer a definition for the common
good that falls under this publication’s perspective, the following is provided: The common good is what is determined it is
by the collective opinions of a population at a given time. It is as if the common good and its elements
are commodities to be consumed by the preferences of the consumers, the
citizens of the nation.
This view is transitory; there are no
transcending concerns other than for the mechanism by which to determine what
is popular and the liberty, on the part of the individual, to express that
judgement. There are no duties or
obligations other than those everyone assumes for him/herself.
In other words, why should students
“know the past” or be active in the political process? They should master these objectives to be able
to voice their educated choice – period.
The argument of this blog is: the
founders of this nation started the ball rolling for more loftier purposes than
this.
[1] For
example, Marian Wilde, “Global grade: How do
U.S. students compare?” Great Schools, April 2, 2015, accessed on February 27,
2017, http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/u-s-students-compare/.
[2] National
Council for the Social Studies, Preparing
Students for College, Career, and Civic Life (Washington, D. C.: NCSS, 2013), accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.socialstudies.org/c3.
No comments:
Post a Comment