Continuing this blog’s commentary on William Schubert’s
commonplaces of curriculum,[1]
this posting addresses youth culture, an element of the last of the
commonplaces, milieu. Historically, this
element was a fairly stable aspect of American life until the years after World
War II. Since the 1950s, there have been severe changes in the milieu
of the typical American school.
Primarily, the nation’s shift to a natural
rights view – one that promotes the central message that everyone has the right
to behave in whatever manner a person chooses as long as the behavior does not interfere
with others having the same rights – was instituted. But that general shift was context to other developments
that prove to have extensive effects.
Large migration patterns, for example, which
saw large numbers of African Americans and Hispanics moving into the northeast
and Midwest areas of the country, caused profound social changes. These changes included the desegregation of
schools and the proliferation of large comprehensive schools which replaced
small community schools.
Schools became less homogeneous.[2] They were characterized as serving
populations that were a mixture of races, classes, and ethnicity. These diverse students varied in the social
and academic expectations of the schools they attended. Society, at large, began to expect schools to
accommodate this diversity by being more tolerant, less authoritative, and more
democratic.
Adult supervision became less assertive with
little agreement as to what the nature of adult responsibilities should
be. A student culture was allowed to
grow and flourish. School officials
began losing their confidence as to their appropriate roles and became
uncertain about their mission.
With a lack of direction there seemed to be a
loss of respect among students for their schools and professional staff and a
general lessening of the moral authority those schools once enjoyed. Students did not, to a larger degree, see
schools as worthwhile as they once did, or at least commentary at the turn of
the century reflected this tendency.[3]
The elements of this disfavor have changed
through the years. Jessica Dicker
reports on more recent research that indicates students questioning the value
of higher education, disheartened by rising costs of colleges with the
associated student loan amounts. These
disincentives are strongly in place despite the judgment that earning college
degrees is almost always worth the costs involved.[4]
The
youth culture that arose in the 1960s expressed itself in its music, clothes,
hairstyles, and attitudes. In general,
the cultural message that the younger generation expressed was antagonistic to
traditional adult values. As this
movement separated itself from the older generation – “the generation gap” – it
found legitimacy in the prevailing natural rights perspective.[5]
The result was an unprecedented delegation of
rights to the members of this adolescent age group. Schools relinquished their loco parentis
role to ascribe and enforce duties and responsibilities to the students under
their charge. Rights were at times
granted to these youths under the formal auspices of court rulings.[6]
Youth
generally began developing attitudes that held lower levels of legitimacy for
school functions, authority, rules, and punishments. Students held with less respect the notions
of doing their best on schoolwork.
Communities were increasingly shut out as the youth culture at schools
became less supportive of school ceremonies and rituals, which not only had encouraged
school allegiance but community inclusion.
Of course, these trends vary around the country;
fewer urban areas retain a lot of traditional views of local schools but
overall, compared to earlier years, these trends are present. This blogger lives in a city of nearly
200,000 people and notes that local high school football coverage is extensive
on local television stations.
Despite reported claims
of a return to traditional values in the 1980s (coinciding with Ronald Reagan’s
administration), the problems documented earlier in this blog of the current
conditions involving the incivility of youth and their general problems bring
into question any such claim. Of more
recent vintage, the effects of social media have taken center stage in
promoting this incivility.[7]
The message of this
account is that adults, while being sensitive to the expectations of youth,
must regain the necessary order that the youth need. As Philip Selznick describes when he writes
about the difference between participatory and repressive socialization, there
is a balancing concern: the aim is to
both encourage self-initiative and self-motivation and to also insure a stable
and stimulating environment for the development of youth.[8]
Government and civic
instruction should be directed toward encouraging these youth to participate in
communal settings in which they feel and know, with familiarity, those
involved. Such instructional strategy
should probably begin with political challenges that are found near their
surroundings, i.e., local political conflicts or problems. This does two things: (a) it provides case studies that might
impinge directly on their milieu, and (b) would engage them with people they
are more likely to know.
The
liberated federalism approach has the potential of bringing diverse groups
together with a shared sense of mission.
That mission can provide the sense of direction that schools seem to be
missing. Adult supervision can take on a
collaborative role as was explained earlier in this blog’s description of
constructivism approach[9]
and is sensitive to the balance Selznick seeks.
[1] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility
(New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing
Company, 1986). The commonplaces can be
defined as follows:
·
The subject matter refers to the academic
content presented in the curriculum.
·
The teacher is the professional instructor
authorized to present and supervise curricular activities within the classroom
setting.
·
Learners are defined as those individuals
attending school for the purpose of acquiring the education entailed in a
particular curriculum.
·
Milieu refers to the general cultural setting
and ambiance within the varied social settings found at the school site.
Upon reflection, these
commonplaces prove to be helpful in asking insightful questions.
[2] See for example Deborah Blagg, “Decoding Youth
Culture and School Success,” Harvard Graduate School of Education (February 19,
2010), accessed November 1, 2023, URL: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/10/02/decoding-youth-culture-and-school-success.
[3] Christopher J. Hurn, The Limits and Possibilities
of Schooling: An Introduction to the
Sociology of Education (Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon, 1993).
[4] Jessica Dicker, “College Is Still Worth It, Research
Finds – Although Students Are Growing Skeptical,” CNBC (March 1, 2023),
accessed November 1, 2023, URL: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/01/is-college-worth-it-what-the-research-shows.html.
[5] For a granular account of this development,
generation to generation, see Jean M. Twenge, Generations: The Real Differences between Gen Z,
Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents – and What They Mean for America’s
Future (New York, NY: Atria Books,
2023).
[6] “In Loco Parentis,” Wikipedia (n.d.), accessed
November 1, 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis#:~:text=Though%20in%20loco%20parentis%20continues,restrictions%20on%20their%20private%20lives AND Hurn, The Limits and Possibilities of
Schooling.
[7] Qiusi Sun, Magdalena, and Sam Davidson, “Over-Time
Trends in Incivility on Social Media:
Evidence from Political, Non-Political, and Mixed Sub-Reddits over
Eleven Years,” Frontiers in Political Science (November 2, 2021),
accessed November 1, 2023, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.741605/full.
[8] Philip Selznick, The
Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and
the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1992).
[9] For example, in terms of constructivism, see posting,
“‘Student’ As a Commonplace, VII,” October 6, 2023.
