This blog in the past has identified two major groupings
within the social studies education community within the US: one, the establishment – made up of school
district bureaucracies, including schools, and federal education offices and
agencies dedicated to advance social studies at the state level – and two, the
academic contingent at the nation’s colleges and universities. The former is basically guided by the natural
rights construct; the latter is guided by the critical theory construct. Between the two there is palpable discord in
what social studies policy should be.
Nowhere is
this discord more observable than in determining what the curriculum of social
studies should contain. This blog has
dedicated quite of bit of space to describing how each construct affects or
attempts to affect that curriculum.
Summarily, natural rights construct promotes a laissez-faire approach
that abandons any meaningful effort toward promoting a values-based content. The reason for this is that, being based on a
natural rights view, the intent is to promote liberty.
As such, the bias is toward content
in which the individual student determines his/her value preferences. The result is one in which social studies
courses are heavy on structural matters – for example, in civics the structure
of government is prominent – and any attempt at value laden issues are limited
to what is popularly determined – what predominates the news of the day. This approach has no conceptual wholeness to
it; no sense of direction. For example,
given the current incidences of school shootings, gun control is an issue a
civics course might handle.
This blog has made the argument that
this lack of theoretical foundation for the choice of content in effect is a
value bias. Issues are determined by the
collective interests of the population at a given time and reflects more of a
market orientation – which issues “sells” on a given day or period.
In turn, market biases are no more
than the accumulation of individual choices.
In turn, the approach furthers an individualism that ignores communal
concerns. There is no or little thought
of how the communal interest is determined:
what constitutes the general good or the commonwealth’s health and
well-being?
On the other side, there is academia
and that faction is guided, as stated above, by the critical theory
construct. With them there is a viable and
well-thought out values commitment. That
is, those who adhere to this construct and see this nation’s – or, for that
matter, that of the Western world’s – social/economic/political arrangements in
the grip of an economic, exploitive class.
In turn, that class, through institutional mechanisms determine the
substance, processes, and functions of establishment policies. That includes schools.
Those policies are geared toward
advancing those exploitive relations. Therefore,
these academics claim that such course work as in social studies, as they are
administered today, are directed toward justifying these relations or ignoring
them. As for any substantive direction,
these academics support inclusion of content guided by critical theory. This is a compilation of
theoretical/ideological substantive material, but the one tradition it favors
is a Marxian view of societal conditions.
There is one institution that seems
to bring these “warring” factions – the establishment education professionals
and academics – physically together; that is the professional, educational
organizations’ annual meetings. It is an
interesting thing to observe; these meetings attract diverse populations. There, they communicate if only
superficially. Occasionally, these
organizations issue curricular products.
Their content is interesting to analyze.
Why? Because of the tensions just
outlined.
In 2013, with a supplement added in
2017, the national professional organization of social studies – the National
Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) – issued such a document. It is entitled College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State
Standards. This blog will refer to
it as the C3 Framework. Its purpose is:
To strengthen their social studies
programs. Its objectives are to: a)
enhance the rigor of the social studies disciplines; b) build critical
thinking, problem solving, and participatory skills to become engaged citizens;
and c) align academic programs to the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies.[1]
In short, the publication is to be used by state education agencies
to align, on a voluntary basis, state standards to the national Common Core
standards.[2]
This posting
is introducing a series of postings that will, in real time, review and make
comment on the content of this publication.
Of prime interest is to test the hypothesis of whether the publication
provides evidence as to the above identified biases of the educational
establishment or does it incorporate the concerns of the academics. A third option is that it designs a compromise
between the two.
Yes, the standards of this effort are
the product of academics, but that does not assure a critical theory bent to
its content. The academic bias
identified here is not one shared by all academics. There are those who support the more
establishment position on content. Given
that this is produced to align state standards with Common Core standards, this
writer believes the publication will side with the establishment view. He is eager to find out. The reader is welcomed to join him in his
inquiry.
Before leaving this initial look at
the C3 Framework, here is a list of principles the developers of the framework
identify:
·
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.[3]
Perhaps these principles are a good place to start and the
next posting will begin this blog’s analysis of the C3 Framework by making
comment on these ideals.
[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] The Common Core Standards is a federal government’s
response to the increased demands employers and colleges are exerting in their
recruitment of employees and students. In
turn, these demands reflect the inherent competition a global economy places within
advanced nations. For more background
information see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative, accessed April 16, 2018.
[3] National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing
Students for College, Career, and Civic Life.
No comments:
Post a Comment