Currently, this blog is reviewing a document issued by the
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) – the C3 Framework. The purpose of the C3 Framework is to issue a
set of educational standards that function as a content element for the Common
Core Standards in language arts. This
blog, over a series of postings, has described and explained this document –
for example, the last posting, “A C3 Turn” provides an overview.
In addition, that posting reports a
bit of a theoretical turn in this document. To understand this turn, one needs to appreciate
the role the NCSS is playing in this exercise.
As the representative of the educational establishment, this
professional organization could be expected to voice the establishment’s
overall stand on curricular issues.
Fundamental
to that stand is a commitment to accepting the natural rights view of
governance and politics when it comes to how the US Government is presented in civics
classroom around-the-nation. In turn,
that perspective is highly supportive of a value position augmenting the
individual and liberty. This liberty is
based on assuring that the individual is free and unencumbered in defining
his/her sense of morality and social demeanor – referred to as individual sovereignty.[1] In a phrase, it supports a “do your own thing” ethos.
But the turn refers to the language
the standards have opted to use. Instead
of an individualist view, the standards use language that highlight communal concerns. While it is safe to assume the developers do
not have the term, federation theory, in mind, one can readily see a federalist
bent – a turn toward communal and collaborative values – in how the standards
are immediately “teed-up.” But as the
last posting argued, this turn is not adequately defined or justified.
Here is a sampling of the contextual
language the C3 Framework provides for the civics standards:
[T]he political system established by
the U.S. Constitution is an important subject of study within civics. Civics
requires other knowledge too; students should also learn about state and local
governments; markets; courts and legal systems; civil society; other nations’
systems and practices; international institutions; and the techniques available
to citizens for preserving and changing a society. Civics is not limited to the
study of politics and society; it also encompasses participation in classrooms
and schools, neighborhoods, groups, and organizations. Not all participation is
beneficial … What defines civic virtue, which democratic principles apply in
given situations, and when discussions are deliberative are not easy questions,
but they are topics for inquiry and reflection.[2]
And,
Civics teaches the principles—such as
adherence to the social contract, consent of the governed, limited government,
legitimate authority, federalism, and separation of powers—that are meant to
guide official institutions such as legislatures, courts, and government
agencies. It also teaches the virtues—such as honesty, mutual respect,
cooperation, and attentiveness to multiple perspectives—that citizens should
use when they interact with each other on public matters. Principles such as
equality, freedom, liberty, respect for individual rights, and deliberation
apply to both official institutions and informal interactions among citizens.
Learning these virtues and principles requires obtaining factual knowledge of
written provisions found in important texts such as the founding documents of
the United States. It also means coming to understand the diverse arguments
that have been made about these documents and their meanings. Finally, students
understand virtues and principles by applying and reflecting on them through
actual civic engagement— their own and that of other people from the past and
present.[3]
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
But a closer look or a more nuance look might uncover a lack of
direction for teachers.
Here is a made-up
example of what might be a suitable discussion under the purview of the above
language. Suppose one is studying the
Supreme Court decision, Brown vs. Topeka School Board, in which the previous judicial
standard concerning schools and other public accommodation sites – in terms of rendering
services – was that it is was legal to segregate racially. There was one proviso, the service was to be “separate,
but equal.” That is, school districts
could maintain separate school facilities if they were “equal.”
Of course, in segregated systems,
they were separate, but not equal – not even close. What if the teacher in this made up classroom
brings up the possibility that at the time some segregationist came up with a
program that maintained segregation, but meaningful efforts were made to make
them equal in terms of resources such as decent schoolhouses, textbooks, and
qualified teachers.
And further, that person, in trying
to sell the idea, told African-American parents that if his plan was to be put
in place, it would avoid their children attending contentious environments
among white students and staffs that didn’t want them in any mandated desegregated
school. How do the above list of values
deal with this “accommodation?”
Luckily, the Supreme Court, after a
lot of deliberations (they heard the case twice) addressed this type of “solution.”[4] But the justices were thinking with a more
substantive theory of law and federalism that led them to dismiss such a
plan. Yes, because of their eventual
decision many black students did have to attend contentious settings –
contentious for both black and white students.
But given the eventual outcomes – significantly more desegregated school
systems – their sacrifice can be deemed worthwhile.
Of course, the aim should not be to expect
students to be able to render Supreme Court decisions, but the aim is to lead
to good questions – both from teachers and students. It is not that this made up scenario would
not be used, but with a clearer and more comprehensive theory, both teachers
and students are meaningfully assisted in asking the “federalist” questions
involved.
And that is helped by a more
substantive theory or narrative of what it means to value equality or liberty
to name two of the listed values. It
also helps to have enough substance by which to judge which – equality or
liberty – is more important in a given situation. The judgement here is that what is offered
falls short of accomplishing these aims.
The next posting will directly look
at the language of the standards themselves.
[1]
Jeffrey Reiman, “Liberalism and Its Critics,” in The Liberalism-Communitarianism Debate, ed. C. F. Delaney (Lanhan,
MD: Rowman and Litttlefield Publishers,
Inc., 1994), 19-37.
[2] National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), College,
Career and Civic Life (C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards),
accessed May 21, 2018, 31, https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/2017/Jun/c3-framework-for-social-studies-rev0617.pdf .
[3] Ibid., 33.
[4] Armed with sufficient statistically backed studies,
the Justices found that segregation of a group of students, in and of itself, communicates
the subjects of the separated groups are inferior. Therefore, whether the groups are treated
with equal resources or not, the message is delivered: “you are not good enough.” Of course, that can and usually has a debilitating
effect. Therefore, the practice of
segregating students offends the Constitutional provision, equal protection
under the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment