An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
Perhaps at this point, a bit of review is in order. What this blog is attempting to do is present
a dialectic position that favors parochial/traditional federalism as the go-to
construct in the development of a civics education curriculum. The blog initially used the organizing
concept, the commonplaces of education, offered by Joseph Schwab, to develop
that position.[2] To date, there was a series of postings
reviewing the first of these “commonplaces,” subject matter. This posting is the last in that phase in
that it addresses the discipline’s methodology.
That is, parochial federalism,
given its content, favors one way of research over others. As opposed to hypothesis-testing research –
experimental or other data analysis efforts of positivist research – parochial
federalism relies mostly on historical analyses. It lends itself most naturally to a
historical, developmental approach which relies chiefly on the analysis of
historical documents.[3]
Researchers see these
documents as windows into the motivations, values, and goals of the historical
actors involved with the development of the nation’s governmental system.[4] Analysis zeroes-in on the literal meanings,
implied meanings, and the derived significance these documents contain. Often the analysis is enhanced through
discussion and debate following the Socratic or Toulmin’s model of
logical argument.[5]
Of
course, such an approach applied to the classroom falls under the academic
rationalist’s orientation[6] or a realist philosophy.[7] Rod Janzen has applied the term, cultural
transmission approach, to this school of thought.[8] To inform the reader, the goal of realists is
to discover ultimate truths through experiential (not experimental) discovery. The truths or discovered insights in
resulting curricular proposals, as offered by this thesis or construct, would
be those involved with the maintenance of an extended republic.
As
such, the assumption is that such a goal is best served by engaging the minds
of students in the intellectual dialogue which, in its origins, predates the
establishment of the American republic (colonial period) to the days of
antiquity. Of particular value would be
the writings of Aristotle and his analysis of constitutions and the value of
community through his discussion of the polis.[9]
Of course, the emphasis
would be to analyze the foundational and other constitutional documents of
American history. These other documents
would include such works and recordings as the Federalist Papers,
writings of John C. Calhoun, Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and assorted court
decisions as well as the founding documents (recurringly cited in this blog). Discussions in class would follow a Socratic dialectic
format in the vein outlined by Plato[10]
or Toulmin’s developmental approach of sound argumentation.[11]
There is also a Janzen approach that
emphasizes the socialization function of the cultural transmission method.
Cultural
transmission suggests that the essential way in which adherence to American
democratic principles is established is through passing on the ideas and
accomplishments of influential persons in American history and in the history
of those cultures that have most influenced Americans.[12]
Through the work of these Americans, students gain an appreciation for
democratic principles, and they are motivated to better their nation. Students are exposed to a common body of
content that contains the theoretical principles of democracy and they
similarly should reflect on the meanings and significance of that knowledge.
After extensive analysis
of the offerings in this area, Diane Ravitch[13]
and E. D. Hirsch[14] claim that there has been
a significant lack in this type of instruction.
While there has been some time since these writers made this claim,
nothing in the subsequent years indicates that matters have changed. And with that sober judgement, this blog’s
review of the commonplace, the subject matter, comes to an end. This dialectic argument will next address, in
the upcoming posting, another commonplace, that being the student.
[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022). The reader is reminded that the claims made
in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this
blogger. Instead, the posting is a
representation of what an advocate of parochial federalism might
present. This is done to present a
dialectic position of that construct.
[2] Reviewed in William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986)
[3] This is not to say that parochial federalism is not
informed by positivist studies, but as its mainstay, the method most utilized
is historical studies.
[4]
Stephen L. Schechter, “Introduction,” in Roots
of the Republic: American Founding
Documents Interpreted, edited by Stephen L. Schechter (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1990).
[5] See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation: Implementing National Civics Standards
(Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas Civics Books,
2020).
[6] Elliot W. Eisner and Elizabeth Vallance, “Five
Conceptions of Curriculum: Their Roots
and Implications for Curriculum Planning,” in Conflicting Conceptions of
Curriculum, edited by Elliot W. Eisner and Elizabeth Vallance (Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation,
1974), 1-18.
[7] Howard A. Ozmon and Samuel M. Craver, Philosophical
Foundations of Education (Columbus, OH:
Merrill Publishing Company, 1986).
[8] Rod Janzen, “The Social Studies Conceptual
Dilemma: Six Contemporary Approaches,” The
Social Studies (May/June 1995), 134-140.
[9] See Aristotle, “The Politics,” in The Great
Political Theories, Volume I: From Plato
and Aristotle to Locke and Montesquieu, edited by Michael Curtis (New York,
NY: Avon Books, 1981), 64-101.
[10]
Ozmon and Craver, Philosophical Foundations
of Education.
[11]
Stephen Toulmin, The Uses
of Argument (London, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1969).
[12]
Janzen, “The Social Studies Conceptual Dilemma,”
The Social Studies, 134-135.
[13] Diane Ravitch, National Standards in American
Education: A Citizen’s Guide (Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1995).
[14] E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know (New
York, NY: Vintage, 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment