[Note: If
the reader has taken up reading this blog with this posting, he/she is helped
by knowing that this posting is the next one in a series of postings. The series begins with the posting, “The Natural Rights’ View
of Morality” (February 25, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-natural-rights-view-of-morality.html).
Overall, the series addresses how the study of political science has
affected the civics curriculum of the nation’s secondary schools.]
Earlier in this series of postings, this blog made the point that the
academic field of political science had what is known as the behavioral revolt at
about the mid twentieth century point.
According to one of that movement’s central figures, David Easton, there
has even been a post-behavioral movement in the 1970s and ‘80s. Be that as it may, the effect of natural
science methods has had a fundamental influence on the study of politics.
Those earlier postings highlighted
the different elements of these turns during the latter part of the twentieth
century. These elements include
formulation and adoption of the political systems model and the adoption of
more scientific protocols in carrying out the research within that academic
discipline. All of this was bound to
have an effect in how civics and government would be taught in the nation’s
secondary schools. That effect is the
next focus of this blog.
But for the sake of saving
the reader who missed that earlier report, here is a brief summary. Due in part to historical accident, the
behavioral movement had a bigger impact on social studies than otherwise would
have been the case. During the 1960s, a
parallel movement became prominent in our secondary schools. As a point of reference, this all happened
while the nation was reacting to Sputnik, the initial Soviet satellite launch
into space in the late 1950s.
Almost overnight, Americans
grew very concerned with how well our schools were preparing our nation's youth
to remain competitive with the Soviets. The
leadership of the nation did not only see this as a race for space, but they visualized
the danger Americans would face if the Soviets had a meaningful advantage from
a military capability perspective. In
response, the federal government pumped a lot of money into schools and most of
it went to bolster science and math education (sound familiar?).
In order not to be left
out, a new movement began in social studies.
That movement was known as the “New Social Studies” and it promoted the
teaching of the scientific method and applying that method to relatively simple
historical, social, and in civics and government classes, political
questions.
In addition, to compete for
federal funds, many in the social studies field promoted a potential shift in
what social studies teachers would teach.
That is, school officials could shift their curriculum toward a more
“scientific” approach. This jelled nicely
with the developments in the social sciences such as those in political science
and its adoption of the political systems approach.
When this writer was a
senior in high school in the 1965-66 school year, he didn't take government and
economics as most seniors do today.
People his age remember taking problems of democracy courses (in many
places it was called problems in American democracy). This course dealt with
the social and political issues of the day.
It was focused on those issues that were current and this called for
lessons that had normative dimensions.
When one refers to
“problems,” by necessity, one starts talking about values. Social problems are situations that at least some
people judge as not being good or right to some level. Logically, one is therefore applying some
standard of good and evil or right and wrong.
But by taking on a “scientific” approach, as the New Social Studies called
for, educators were asked to take a step away from normative questions –
teachers were instead asked or, at least, encouraged to present content without
any ethical consideration to it.
Not all of the New Social
Studies were so objectified, but there was a definite move in the nation’s
classrooms to be less engaged in instruction that promoted or discussed values. In its place, lessons began emphasizing
structural and procedural elements of the subject matter. Of course, the effect was less strident in
history since that whole endeavor emphasizes the noted issues of a given time,
e.g., a unit concerning the Civil War in American history. But even there the emphasis became what happened
over what should have happened.
But there needs to be a
distinction between those elements of the New Social Studies that referred to
content and those elements that referred to instruction. While the New Social Studies lost favor
during the 1970s, there has been a lingering effort among professional, teacher
organizations to uphold its instructional format as being progressive and
interactive, as opposed to traditional teaching strategies that have students
receive instruction in a more passive fashion – didactic methods.
For example, of late the
social studies professional organization, the NCSS, has recently issued a set
of standards for civics education. Those
standards promote what it calls an “inquiry arc.”[1] This writer believes that tying content
standards to instructional approach is counterproductive; teachers are
significantly less likely to adopt the program if that aspect becomes a
requirement of its application.
As stated earlier in this
blog, the majority of teachers ignore these calls for change as they continue
following the more traditional modes of instruction. This might be offset with all the new
technologies that have befallen the typical classroom, exemplified by access to
online resources, especially in the more affluent school districts. That is, easy access to online sources
probably encourages teachers to assign more research topics or engage in
discussions in which students are expected to identify relevant evidence to any
position they may make.
But to the understanding of
this writer, the general instructional process of dispensing information –
through mostly lectures and other demonstrations – still prevails. And, in defense of those teachers, teaching
is a very personal activity. Standing in
front of a class full of adolescents, one needs to feel comfortable. There is a palpable difference in using a
didactic method as oppose to an inquiry method.
The next posting will pick up this line of thought.
[1] National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing Students for College, Career, and
Civic Life C3. This writer has a critical
review of these standards in recently published book. See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated
Nation: Implementing National Civics
Standards (Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas/Civics
Books, 2020).
No comments:
Post a Comment