[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.]
A claim of this blog
has been that the language the establishment of civics education uses to communicate
its vision of governance and politics is one of separation between the
government and its people. This claim is
based on a review of the 2003 standards the Center for Civics Education issued
in relation to the testing it sponsors and that results in what is known as the
“Nation’s Report Card.”
This
claim is made with an important proviso – that that language has made a shift
within the last ten years. Of current
note, one can look at the standards the National Council for the Social Studies
issued in its C3 Framework.[1] Under a central concern for what the NCSS
calls civic virtue, those standards do make a significant turn toward the consideration
of normative, communal issues.
Another
indicator of this turn has been the 2014 standards that the Center for Civics
Education developed. They do express a
concern for civic responsibilities, but those standards still seem to lack a
theoretical wholeness. Instead, the
Center seems to string together a list of civic qualities that reflect a
concern for responsible citizenship.
If
one looks at the 2003 language describing responsibilities (in the previous
posting), it is narrow and primarily centered on household concerns, an
extension of one's own interests. But with
the 2014 standards there is hope. These
standards are much more proactive. Here
is a list of values the newer standards list:
To achieve this standard, students should be able to
o evaluate the usefulness of the
following traits in facilitating thoughtful and effective participation in
public affairs
o civility--treating other persons respectfully,
regardless of whether or not one agrees with their viewpoints; being willing to
listen to other points of view; avoiding hostile, abusive, emotional, and
illogical argument
o respect for the rights of other
individuals--having
respect for others' right to an equal voice in government, to be equal in the
eyes of the law, to hold and advocate diverse ideas, and to join in
associations to advance their views
o respect for law--willingness to abide by laws, even
though one may not be in complete agreement with every law; willingness to work
through peaceful, legal means to change laws which one thinks to be unwise or
unjust
o honesty--willingness to seek and express the
truth
o open mindedness--considering others' points of view
o critical mindedness--having the inclination to question
the validity of various positions, including one's own
o negotiation and compromise--making an effort to come to agreement
with those with whom one may differ, when it is reasonable and morally justifiable
to do so
o persistence--being willing to attempt again and
again to accomplish worthwhile goals
o civic mindedness--paying attention to and having
concern for public affairs
o compassion--having concern for the well-being of
others, especially for the less fortunate
o patriotism--being loyal to the values and
principles underlying American constitutional democracy, as distinguished from
jingoism and chauvinism
o courage--the strength to stand up for one's
convictions, when conscience demands
o tolerance of ambiguity--the ability to accept uncertainties
that arise, e.g., from insufficient knowledge or understanding of complex
issues or from tension among fundamental values and principles[2]
With this newer
language there is more meat on the bone.
One can also point out that the newer document has throughout an array
of quotes from historical characters that communicate civil and democratic
values.
These
elements tend to set an educator’s frame of mind to encourage a civics
curriculum in which a teacher teaches active citizenry in ways that would
promote social capital. That is, using
the thoughts of Robert Putnam, social capital is characterized by having an
active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a
social environment of trust and cooperation.[3] Bravo!
While
this writer holds out that the effort still falls short, its direction is
encouraging. Since there are many ways
to say something, language choices are telling.
If one has become accustomed to the language of classical liberalism,
one might sense the above is a sufficient call for a civic citizen. But, at the time of the founding of the
nation, the language would have had a different slant.
In
those days, the common language would cast liberty not as being able to do as
one wants, but as one should.[4] At that time, our founding generation
expressed concern for tyranny emanating from a variety of sources, not the
least being one's own passions.
Within
the very influential Puritanical tradition, people held strongly to the idea
that personal failings were generated by uncontrolled submission to one's own
desires. Concern for freedom or liberty,
therefore, had much to do with having self-discipline. This is not a claim that says people didn't
“sin” in the past, but rather the notion of sin was quite different from what
it is today.
The
point being made here is that the language of the Center’s standards, even in
the more recent version, does not even hint at this more traditional
ideal. This blog is not promoting
Puritanical ideals, but given the nation’s historical traditions, the standards
could have given this bias some recognition.
As a youth, this writer’s civics instruction had a strong dose of such
concerns[5]
and despite how he feels some days, that was not so long ago.
[1] National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing
Students for College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) (Washington, D. C.: NCSS, 2013), accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.socialstudies.org/c3 . To see this writer’s critique of that effort,
see Robert Gutierrez, Toward a
Federated Nation: Implementing National
Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:
Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020) particularly Chapter 1, “C3 Framework of
Standards.’’
[2] Center for Civic Education, National Standards for Civics and Government (Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education, 2014), accessed May
3, 2020, http://www.civiced.org/standards?page=912erica#15
.
[3] See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[4] A good review of that thinking can be found in Allen C.
Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I – a transcript book – (Chantilly,
VA: The Teaching Company/The Great
Courses, 2005).
[5] For example, his twelfth-grade civics course was not
American government, as is the norm today, but Problems of American Democracy –
a much more normative approach than what prevails today.
No comments:
Post a Comment