The last posting introduced a publication issued by the
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
The NCSS is the professional organization of social studies educators. The publication, referred to here as C3
Framework,[1] is meant
to provide standards so that educators in this field can go about integrating state
standards to the Common Core curricular standards. State education bureaucracies can adopt
Common Core standards on a voluntary basis.
This blog, in
real time, will review this publication and make comment on its content. It will “evaluate” the standards and other
rationale arguments the publication makes against this blog’s stated arguments
in favor of federation theory. Summarily,
federation theory is proposed in this blog as a guide to determine social
studies content, especially in the subject matter of civics and government; secondary
subjects, students are required to take to gain either advancement into high
school or a high school diploma.
The last
posting ended with a list of principles the NCSS devised to guide them in their
development of the publication. They
are:
·
Social studies prepares the nation’s
young people for college, careers, and civic life.
·
Inquiry is at the heart of social
studies.
·
Social studies involves
interdisciplinary applications and welcomes integration of the arts and
humanities.
·
Social studies is composed of deep and
enduring understandings, concepts, and skills from the disciplines. Social studies emphasizes skills and
practices as preparation for democratic decision-making.
·
Social studies education should have
direct and explicit connections to the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts.
The writer, in that
posting, hypothesized that this effort by the NCSS would be guided by the natural
rights construct since this effort is to bolster the curricular work of both
national and state educational bureaucracies.
A good place to test that educated hunch is with the above principles of
this national – in scope – project.
To begin, this writer will not assume
that the principles are listed in some order of priority. That is, they could have been listed in any
order without giving the reader a different sense of what is more important
than something else. Perhaps there is some
logical progression involved, but that does not determine more importance to
one principle over another. If anything,
one might place highest importance to the last listed principle, since it
reveals the fundamental reason the project was undertaken.
For the purposes of this review, it
will, over at least two postings, begin with the first listed principle and
proceed to the last. In this, this
writer has a very heavy concern with the first listed principle. It identifies what the standards’ aim is for
social studies and lists three preparational targets. Here one can assume a priority listing since
these could easily be listed in any optional order. By listing college first, careers second, and
civic life last, the developers betray a political concern.
First, the central raison d’etre for social studies, heck
for all public schooling, is good citizenship.
That is why education is guaranteed, either using public or private
funds. At least that is how the
establishment of public schooling was initially sold to the powerholders of
this nation. If the main goals were
college and careers, then why should tax monies be expended on them? If a person wants his/her kids to go to
college or have a rewarding career, why should that be a financial burden on the
general population?
No, the reason tax monies are used is
that it is in the common good to have good citizens. Early on this blog, it had the following to
say on this topic:
Despite the prudence of instituting public schools, it took until the
mid-1800s to sell the idea and begin the process culminating in the system there
is today. There has been, almost since the beginning of the nation, a recurring
theme by those advancing public education of what the basic aim should be. The
historian Butts[2]
writes about the ways some of the founders captured this theme.
He writes: “preparing the people for the common duties
of republican citizenship required a common education whose first and basic
priority is building and maintaining a cohesive political community devoted to
the civic ideals of liberty, equality, popular consent, and personal obligation
for the public good.”[3]
Among the early historical dignitaries supporting such
a notion where Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington. More
directly stated, the central reason for building a public-school system was to
prepare good citizens. This reason does not exclude other reasons; it was and
is merely held to be the most important, at least in the minds of these heroic
characters and many others who followed.
Since those days, though, the status of social studies
has vacillated in a generally downward direction.[4]
This writer is making
a point of this priority because he feels that the stated sense of importance
within this publication leads to less than optimal policy choices. As stated, it communicates an individualist
notion of what education should strive to accomplish. This is at the sacrifice of communal
interests. It is line with the shift in
American political thinking and sensitivities.
That shift, as this blog has reported,
is one from a federalist view to the natural rights view; a shift completed in
the years following World War II.
Whether someone is ready for college or is being set up to take on
rewarding careers is mostly a personal ambition. Yes, a nation is healthier if its citizens can
attain good, higher education or be afforded meaningful work experiences. But this positive result is only indirectly an
asset for the commonwealth.
And with this priority, the rest of
the principles take on a more personal bent.
One is more apt to read the other four principles as furthering what individual
students can secure for their own benefits.
The argument here is not to do away with individual concerns; they are important. Surely, social studies can serve to bolster
those interests. But those interests
should be defined within public institution’s main concern. That is the common good.
The next posting will look more
closely at the remaining principles and then, with subsequent postings, get
into the body of the C3 Framework. Of
main interest is: does this judged
priority influence the content of this document? Again, the hypothesis is: yes, it does.
[1] 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.
[2] R. Freeman Butts, The
Civic Mission in Educational Reform: Perspectives for the Public and the Profession
(Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1989).
[3] Ibid, p. 65
[4] “Civics Education: Job One,” September 24, 2010. Modified to adjust to current editorial format
of this blog. This posting has been
deleted from the archival collection of this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment