SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, IV

 

In answering the question – does a federalist perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in American secondary schools? – this blog has presented a dialectic study.[1]  Each of the arguments in that presentation, the segments of the study in the form of a thesis (natural rights based approach), antithesis (critical theory based approach), and synthesis (liberated federalism based approach), contained a methodological subsection.

          That is, within these subsections the blog addressed the question of which pedagogic strategies would best present instructionally the content of each approach.  Those approaches – which included the dominant view prior to the natural rights ascendency, the parochial/traditional federalism (pre thesis) – stems back to colonial days in American history.  Currently, the dialectic struggle pits natural rights being challenged by critical theory.  This account offers liberated federalism as a viable synthesis. 

This was not an extensive treatment of instructional methods but an attempt to present the methodology that was/is either prevalent during the historical period in which the approach was/is dominant or in which it became dominant.  That would include the proposed dominance of liberated federalism.

          For example, the essentialist strategy, associated with the natural rights perspective, was reviewed since it has been the most used strategy of instruction during the current natural rights period.  Other than that review, the dialectic study did extend its analysis to other origins of curricular content, namely the commonplaces of curricular development.[2]  Much more should be addressed either in terms of other topics or more extensive study of those elements identified.

          That is, future research concerns over this general topic should look at the claims made in this presentation.  Such studies should devise empirical and qualitative questions and follow those with appropriate, methodologically sound research.  The answers to those questions addressing the proposed construct, for the most part, are dependent on the actual implementation of that model.

          To be targeted, any subsequent study would be assisted by suggested, more targeted questions.  More specifically, these questions identify general research areas which are deemed relevant to the implementation of the proposed construct.  In offering a list of those questions, this posting addresses three concerns:  1. the existing levels of supportive values and attitudes regarding federalist, republican values that prevail among Americans; 2. the sociological factors that could affect the acceptance, implementation, and success of the proposed construct; and 3. the anticipated efficiency in implementing the proposed construct.

          In terms of the first concern – supportive values and attitudes – the following questions can and should be asked:

 

·       To what extent do adults in the general national population share in values and attitudes that can be described as federalist or republican?

·       To what extent do students of secondary age share in values and attitudes that can be described as federalist or republican?

·       Are there personality types that are more receptive to federalist values and attitudes?

·       Are there cognitive levels of ability associated with federalist and republican values and attitudes?

·       Are emotional patterns among the citizenry positively associated with federalist values and attitudes?

·       What are the values and attitudes of the general citizenry, particularly among parents, to a normative approach to the study of government and civics, as described in this dialectic argument, to instruction?

·       To what extent do secondary social studies teachers support federalist and republican values and attitudes?

·       Are values supportive of the natural rights perspective and the federalist perspective mutually exclusive as perceived by affected individuals?

 

In terms of sociological factors, the following is offered:

 

·       Does the amount of time students’ families have lived in the United States and been exposed to American culture influence the level of support those students have for federalist or republican values?

·       Does the fact that a student’s household is a one or two parent arrangement influence the level of support that student has for federalist and republican values and attitudes?

·       Does a student’s success in school relate to the support that student has for federalist or republican values and attitudes?

·       Do negative experiences with law enforcement agents or agencies influence the level of support a student has for federalist or republican values or attitudes?

·       Is there an association between the geographic origins of a family and the level of support a student might have for federalist and republican values and attitudes?

·       Does the number of household inhabitants have an association with the level of support a student might have for federalist or republican values and attitudes?

·       Does the family’s income level have an association with the level of support a student has for federalist or republican values and attitudes?

 

And with the last concern, efficiency of implementing the proposed construct, the questions are:

 

·       Is the proposed model efficient in formulating instructional lessons?

·       How understandable, among teachers, is the proposed model?

·       In use, does the proposed model address the political issues sufficiently – regarding the expectations of teachers and the demand of curricular guides by state and district officials for a secondary course in civics or American government?

·       Are the constructivist strategies suggested in this blog and its supportive psychological theory a viable approach for pedagogic purposes?

·       And the remaining questions are based on Peter Oliva’s perennial problems of curriculum development[3] and asks if the resulting curriculum, which uses the proposed model, have the following:  viable level of scope, relevancy, balance, sequence, continuity, articulation, and transferability?

 

As the scope of these questions indicates, the implementation of a new curricular foundation to the study of civics – or any legitimate subject – is not a simple proposition.  Not only are there vested interests in what is, but the whole mental framing that people have of an institutional practice is likely to be well embedded.

---

[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez, “Dealing with Ideals,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.

[2] 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.

[3] Peter F. Oliva, Developing the Curriculum (Boston, MA:  Little, Brown and Company, 1982).

SUMMARIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR LIBERATED FEDERALISM, III

 

This blog has been about answering a question.  That is:  does a federalist perspective, in the form of liberated federalism, provide a legitimate and viable construct for the study of governance and politics in both middle schools (civics) and high schools (U.S. government)?  Federalism, in its more theoretical plain, is concerned with a lot more than structural arrangement among entities such as the US’ central and state governments.  In fact, it offers a whole way of viewing governance and politics.

It is an approach that reflects a congregational style in which the individual entities making up a polity take on a partnership role with the other entities in the arrangement.  With that, each entity has understood duties, responsibilities, and obligations – not necessarily mandated by law – aimed at initiating or sustaining the interests of the federated union.  In short, each is to behave in ways that support those interests even if it means sacrificing self-interests.

To answer the above central question, there are subsidiary questions.  As this and those postings that immediately follow are summary entries, these questions suggested themselves from the concerns of the analysis this blog has presented. They are:  How have the constructs guiding the teaching of American government and civics – since the beginning of the nation – evolved?  What have been the salient consequences of that development?  To what state should the development of a construct lead?  And how can the desirable state come about?

The first two questions reflect the historical aspects of the analysis this blog has, since late 2021, been presenting.  That is an analysis of American governance and politics emanating from the central mental constructs that have guided those activities from the origin of the nation.  That history was summarized through the blog’s postings since that first one of this series, “Dealing with Ideals,” which was posted on December 14, 2021.[1]  It, the historical account, described and explained the evolution of the parochial/traditional federalist perspective and how it morphed into the natural rights perspective.

Included, though, were descriptions of political science theories or models that are associated with each historical period.  The theory of federalism, with a strong component of republican thought, was described utilizing the ideas of Daniel Elazar, Gordon Wood, and Donald Lutz, among others.  Their contributions helped present the general tenets of the federalist/republican view.[2]

When the analysis turned to the natural rights view, the blog shifted in its reliance on political science contributions, to the political systems model – mostly from the work of David Easton – and the structural-functional approach – the work of Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell.  The two models were reviewed as basic disciplinary constructs which have served, under the natural rights era, as foundation for the current teaching of civics in the nation’s schools.

Challenging this dominant view, since the 1960s, has been the Marxian view, critical theory.  That view has softened the Marx influence with what has generally been the ideas of postmodernism.  Here, writings of Paulo Freire, Cleo Cherryholmes, Henry Giroux, and Michael Apple were utilized.  The central message of this approach has been to further a view of equality that it, the construct, holds as a trump value and advocates achieving equal results. 

In essence, it argues that levels of wealth and income should drastically approach equality across the workforce; that there should not be a “have,” as opposed to a “have not,” class of people.  Since no modern society has come close to this ideal, its actual realization – what that would look like – is a mystery.  Consequently, most content inspired by this approach seems to be lodged in describing how unequal or exploitive conditions are, especially in capitalist nations such as the US.

The synthesis, the adoption of liberated federalism to guide civics, contains the compromised position between natural rights and critical theory.  It advocates the re-emergence of federalism as the dominant view but is especially sensitive to the liberty and equality issues that natural rights and critical theory views stress in either their dominance or in their challenge. 

Here, the ideas of Philip Selznick, Amitai Etzioni, and Robert Bellah were central, as well as the cited writers of the federalist view.  As such, ideas and ideals of these contributors had a profound influence in the development of the proposed model, the liberated federalism model.  Stated as a simple assertion:  civics education should be guided by the liberated federalist mental construct.

---

[1] Interested readers who wish to look up the postings that present the dialectic argument from its beginning, see Robert Gutierrez, “Dealing with Ideals,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics,” December 14, 2021, accessed November 14, 2023, URL:  https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_12_12_archive.html.

[2] These writers should not be considered advocates of parochial/traditional federalism, but of the more generic view of federalism or its ideals.