This blog, in previous postings, has addressed the
question: why civics education? It, in answering this question, placed the
function of civics, and more generally of social studies, at the center of why
there is public education. Mainly, the
subject area is aimed at instilling – at least, in helping to do so –those
attitudes and values that support democratic-republican governance. So, in the spirit of this mandate, in all
documents that address what social studies should be doing, this central
function should be prominent.
Yet, considering
the C3 Framework,[1] a
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) publication, the last posting
made the argument that that work treats this central concern as an
afterthought. At least that is the opinion
of this writer after reviewing the principles the NCSS identified for this
effort, which is to accommodate Common Core standards to state social studies
standards.
Apparently, in a time that the relative
importance of social studies has taken a hit over the last several decades, the
NCSS is trying to improve that standing by issuing this publication. A problem is, though, that this effort is being
attempted in a time in which general views of governance and politics is mostly
held under the guidance of a mental construct, the natural rights construct,
that diminishes the importance of republican (with a small “r”) values and beliefs.
That is, that construct is mostly antagonistic
to something called civic humanism: an
individual commitment to define personal interests in terms of the common good
even, if by doing so, short-term interests are limited or even sacrificed. Natural rights promotes individually defined
interests and precludes any effort by public institutions to instill or even
promote any normative set of beliefs other than liberty.
Consequently, any observation of
today’s political scene seems to amply demonstrate the reluctance of most
people sacrificing anything that hints at being their immediate interests. The last posting offered a criticism of this
point of view as it is expressed by the first principle of the C3 Framework project. This posting looks, with a critical eye, at
the rest of the principles.
The second principle reads: “inquiry is at the heart
of social studies.” This is an
instructional principle. Inquiry is an
instructional approach that calls for students to investigate, test, make
conclusions, and be able to defend and apply those conclusions. The inquiry method was initially promoted as
a reaction to the Soviet launching of Sputnik satellite back in the late
fifties and sixties.
At
the time it resembled the scientific method and was applied across all the social
studies subjects, including history. It
introduced a more amoral approach to the study of human behavior – students
were to deal with the facts and form behaviorists conclusions as to why humans
behave as they do. At the same time, to
be honest, there was also a move to promote the inquiry over “controversial”
issues, but such a normative approach left moral or value questions up to what
was of concern by the public at a given time without any sense of priority.[2]
The
third principle reads: “social studies involves
interdisciplinary applications and welcomes integration of the arts and
humanities.” This principle betrays the
diminished role of social studies.
Instead of social studies having its own set of standards within the
Common Core framework, it has a “role” by providing content for the English
standards – a sort of a backdoor avenue to making its presence felt. This is a far cry from a central role social
studies should have as the last posting argues.
As a matter of
fact, Common Core purposely avoids content commitments and is respectful of
state educational authorities’ role in determining content. Therefore, it bolsters, in terms of content, what
is prevalent today and that tends to be overly structural in nature. For example, in terms of civics and
government, they would be emphasizing the structural elements of government and
that lends itself to memorization demands on the part of students. This is the ongoing criticism of education in
America and is contrary to the second principle above. It is also at odds with the other principles
of the C3 Framework – read on.
The fourth
principle reads: “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.” This principle is too vague to take
seriously. What disciplines? The social science disciplines with their scientific
commitment to shun any substantive value orientation? Equally unclear is a commitment toward
democratic decision-making. This leaves
too much up in the air.
Of
course, this is a principle, not a standard.
One needs to see how it is applied in the subsequent content. This writer presents this concern here as a
foreshadowing of what will be on his radar as he further reports on the C3 Framework’s substantive content. To remind the reader, his hypothesis is that
this effort favors such a valueless view.
The fifth principle reads: “social studies
education should have direct and explicit connections to the Common Core State
Standards for English Language Arts.” This
principle does not need any further comment; it further supports the “backdoor”
role social studies subjects play in the minds of educational authorities.
The next posting will begin reviewing
the substantive content of the C3
Framework document.
[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] There was one national program, the Jurisprudential
project, that did try to place in priority values inherent in the US Constitution. See Donald W. Oliver and James
P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the
High School (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1966) AND
Fred M. Newmann, and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying
Public Controversy: An Approach to
Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970).
No comments:
Post a Comment