A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, May 25, 2018

A FEDERALIST LANGUAGE?


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