A CHANGE IN EMPHASIS? PART III

[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.]

This blog of late has reviewed a pair of publications from an organization, the Center for Civics Education.[1]  The Center is considered an establishment organization overseeing, at a national level, the proficiency of civics education.  The publications contain the standards that organization issued as part of its co-sponsorship with the effort known as the “Nation’s Report Card.” 

That is, the standards are used in the development of test items that, in turn, are administered to a random sample of students from around the country.  The purpose is to measure not how well they are doing, but to get a sense of how well schools are doing in teaching civics.

          But in doing so, by reviewing the standards, one can get an idea about what is being taught in those schools.  This posting gives some parting thoughts as to how the standards reflect civics curricula across the nation.  The last two postings compared the content of the last two issuances of the Standards, in 2003 and 2014.  Comparing the two, one can detect a shift from a fairly strong individualist language to one that is more communal. 

Prior to the more recent effort in 2014, the cited national standards totally missed any sense of addressing attitudinal prerequisites geared toward civic responsibility, such as the need for empathy, trust, friendship, and loyalty among citizens.  In short, there was no “we're in this together” language.  In a subject wherein this associative feeling is important, it should have been prominently incorporated. 

The newer language does make a stab at being more empathetic, but it still lacks a theoretical foundation.  It seems – perhaps only to this writer – that the current pro communal language is included as something to check off a list.  But as this blog documents, the nation with its polarized political landscape needs a more proactive language that bolsters the aim of encouraging federated thinking among the populous.

If one wants to see how actual standards, at the state level – as opposed to this national effort – are used to evaluate individual students, check out state standards such as the state of Florida’s assessment standards.  They have been designed for the purposes of formulating end of course test items. 

This more local product has real consequences for students.  The language used for that purpose reflects a more uncompromised systems approach with a structural and functional perspective.  For example, the state of Florida has settled on the following overall aim:  “Florida Statutes, states that Florida’s education system should ensure that ‘students are to prepare to become civically engaged and knowledgeable adults who make positive contributions to their communities.’”[2] But the curriculum they mandate does not follow suit.

For example, the Department cites the following overall aim for middle school civics instruction:

In order for a student to be promoted to high school from a school that includes middle grades 6, 7, 8, the student must successfully complete on one-semester civics education course that includes the roles and responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments; the structures and function of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; and the meaning and significance of historic documents, such as the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.  Each student’s performance on the statewide, standardized end-of-course assessment in civics education constitutes 30 percent of the student’s final course grade.[3]

As opposed to the general communal aim, it seems that when one gets to the actual assessment of student achievement, the concern is more structural and procedural.

          With this overall view, one lacks a sense of what a citizen’s positive contribution is – what constitutes positivity?  The above cited memorandum does reveal a recognition of the importance of community involvement, but one gets the feeling that that concern is satisfied if the student becomes knowledgeable about the structural and procedural elements of governance that address this concern. 

While federation theory does not insist people be forcibly made to participate, consent being a key federal prerequisite, a more direct sense of engagement is communicated by a federated view.  That view holds a communal orientation as central as it takes on a moral commitment or posture.  The point here is that the current language in those documents describes responsibilities as a narrow concern and primarily targeted at favoring one’s vested interests. 

Yes, there are references to household concerns, local communities, and a vague sense of the general good, but they are not highlighted and tangible with meaningful examples. That language lacks “how to” instructions that explain how one becomes more engaged.  In other words, between 2003 and 2014, there seems to be a change of course, but that change does not reflect a solid commitment to accomplishing that change.

Perhaps one thinks this is a bit unfair to pluck standards from what many would consider technical publications.   One can only state that such language found in the standards leads to or, at least, is congruent with the technical, uninspiring language of textbooks and other establishment materials which students are exposed to daily. 

To believe there is no connection between this language and what is taught in civics and government classes is to believe that national pronouncements by establishment entities have no relevant influence in this area.  The claim here is that they do have a meaningful influence, but it is indirect and often lags behind other sources. 

While the newer language of the 2014 standards issued by the Center for Civic Education is welcomed, it will take a significant amount of time for this newer language to have any meaningful influence on what students are taught.  From this writer’s experience – twenty-five years of classroom teaching – he can state that the official educational establishment does influence what is taught if only indirectly. 

But the portion of the establishment that counts directly is that of the state and the school district.  It is at those levels that textbook choices are made.  And now, with the next posting, the attention shifts to the textbook.

---

[1] “National Standards for Civics and Government,” Center for Civics Education (2014), accessed May 10, 2020, https://www.civiced.org/standards .

[2] “Civic Literacy Exam Pilot – Spring 2020 Guidance” (a memorandum), Florida Department of Education, January 31, 2020, accessed May 7, 2020, https://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-8823/dps-2020-08.pdf .

[3] “Civic Literacy,” Florida Department of Education (2020), accessed May 11, 2020, http://www.fldoe.org/civicliteracy/ .

A CHANGE IN EMPHASIS? PART II

[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.

A CHANGE IN EMPHASIS? PART I

[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.]

With this posting, this blog reviews the content of those standards that the Center for Civic Education developed to guide the question-development process of its national testing program.  This writer wants to contextualize what follows and make an observation.  When one looks at the officialdom of social studies at the national level one sees an observable change going on. 

Of recent vintage, the federal government’s Department of Education efforts has included a joint project with the professional organization of social studies educators, the National Council for the Social Studies.  That project has issued a set of national standards for civics.  Through that effort, one can sense that a change of direction might be in the works – hopefully, the C3 Framework,[1] what its resulting standards can be called, indicates a move away from a natural rights stance to one that engages in a more normative approach.  Time will tell.

But as to the efforts that leadership has taken up to this point – those efforts that have influenced the general approach instruction has implemented – one can look at two concrete products.  They are the textbooks that school districts have distributed to teachers and the national standards that have been used to evaluate the state of civics education.  This posting starts with the standards.

To begin, one can look at the Educational Testing Service standards that were published in 2003.  Below is a sample of these standards as well as those of 2014 and they are followed by how this writer evaluates them, i.e., he reports on a growing awareness of how un-communal civics instruction had become.  This posting looks at the former standards and the next posting will highlight the 2014 standards.

As one reads the following excerpt, one should observe the tenor and priority the writers of that document express.  This review chooses from 2003 standards those items regarding rights and responsibilities of citizens:

Content summary and rationale

One of the primary purposes of American government is the protection of personal, political, and economic rights of individuals. It is essential, therefore, for citizens to understand what these rights are and why they are important to themselves and their society.

Few, if any, rights can be considered absolute.  Most rights may be limited when they conflict with other important rights, values, and interests.  An understanding of both the importance of rights and the need for reasonable limitations upon them provides a basis for reasoned discussion of issues regarding them.

1. Rights of individuals. Students should be able to explain why certain rights are important to the individual and to a democratic society.

To achieve this standard, students should be able to

·       identify the following types of rights and explain their importance

·       personal rights, e.g., to associate with whomever one pleases, live where one chooses, practice the religion of one's choice, travel freely and return to the United States, emigrate

·       political rights, e.g., to vote, speak freely and criticize the government, join organizations that try to influence government policies, join a political party, seek and hold public office

·       economic rights, e.g., to own property, choose one's work, change employment, join a labor union, establish a business

·       identify contemporary issues regarding rights, e.g., school prayer, employment, welfare, equal pay for equal work ...

Content summary and rationale

An understanding of the importance of individual rights must be accompanied by an examination of personal and civic responsibilities.  For American democracy to flourish, citizens must not only be aware of their rights, they must also exercise them responsibly and they must fulfill those responsibilities necessary to a self-governing, free, and just society.

2. Responsibilities of individuals. Students should be able to explain why certain responsibilities are important to themselves and their family, community, state and nation.

To achieve this standard, students should be able to identify such responsibilities as the following and explain their importance

·       personal responsibilities, e.g., taking care of themselves, accepting responsibility for the consequences of their actions, taking advantage of the opportunity to be educated, supporting their families

·       civic responsibilities, e.g., obeying the law, respecting the rights of others, being informed and attentive to the needs of their community, paying attention to how well their elected leaders are doing their jobs communicating with their representatives in their school, local, state, and national governments, voting, paying taxes, serving on juries, serving in the armed forces[2]

Admittedly, what follows is the writer’s interpretation; see if the reader agrees.

First, there is seemingly little to disagree with here.  A close reading, though, reveals a bias.  In terms of the thrust of these standards’ language, while guardedly adding language concerning communal conditions almost as an afterthought, the standards favor individual liberty.  Students are encouraged to pursue individual choices.  This is in line with traditional liberal thought as has been described in this blog.

While there is a reference to certain values, they are mostly procedural ones such as participating in the political process, but only minimally.  How does the language pursue communal interests?  Honestly, does the above language encourage community or is it a language reflecting a systems approach with a structural and functional perspective?  As the reader might guess, this writer sees the language as promoting individualism.

Does it harken to a view of government as being of and by its citizens or does it paint a picture segregating the citizenry from its government?  The claim here is that the language communicates a separation and, while there is a concern for civic responsibilities, the emphasis is on individual liberal rights in that that standard is highlighted first and has more substance.  The next posting will pursue this investigation into the next set of standards the Center for Civic Education issued in 2014.

---

[1] To see the product of that effort see 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, 2003), 35-36.

NATIONAL EFFORTS TO STEER CIVICS

[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.]

What does the natural rights’ view of governance and politics see as being the appropriate content for civics?  Included in this question is the concern over what the civic role of schools should be.  Since it is impossible to totally segregate these topics – moral outlook, perspective of politics and governance, and elements of a civics curriculum – this blog from time to time has addressed these concerns.  This posting begins addressing these curricular issues as a set of concerns even more directly.

          Most civics’ textbook writers have adopted a natural rights view.  By doing so, they have promoted either intentionally or unintentionally certain normative messages.  But to see what constitutes the content of civics, just pick up copies of the textbooks prominently used.  For a list of these books, see the posting, “A Natural Rights Curricular Direction,” April 24, 2020.

As it has been described previously, there is not much that distinguishes these textbooks. They all take a mostly structural approach to describe government.  Consequently, there is little explanation of the political aims of people or the concerns of communities that are conveyed by these classroom materials. 

As described, the systems/structural-functional approach these books use says little of the interdependence of citizens on each other.  But despite this fairly “clinical” view of government and politics, the books still convey a central moral message: that of classical liberalism or what this blog refers to as the natural rights perspective.

To be clear, the conveyance of a moral message would be the case with the adoption of any construct.  Moral implications are unavoidable.  But the ascribed liberal position is ironically to avoid values or ideological advocacy that undermine the right of individuals to determine their own value commitments – which in turn is a value position.

As this blog has pointed out before, any value position, however limited, will entail many preferences in a variety of situations and conditions.  The natural rights perspective is not immune to this general observation.  That construct has students relate to society from a very self-centered point of reference or as stated earlier in this blog, they will see civic issues from a “what's in it for me?” angle.  It’s just the natural way for them to see things. 

The only positive role that government would have under such a perspective is to provide demanded services and this perspective encourages the citizen to take on the role of a consumer.  Government, as described by the natural rights' view, is pictured as this large overarching institution that exists to render services. 

Under this view, the citizens are the consumers.  As such, the natural rights view, a view that promotes natural liberty, is in counter position to federal theory that promotes federal liberty.  The first detaches a sense of duty and obligation from liberty unless the individual chooses to attach them.  Federal liberty presupposes that duties and obligations are part and parcel of what is expected from a citizenry.

Given that this construct, the natural rights view, is the central theoretical foundation for what is taught in American civics and government classes, it has a profound impact on what young people are exposed to in terms of governmental and political content and values.  This influence is felt in a variety of ways.

Influences range from the content found in most textbooks, as just reported, to national attempts at assessing how well schools perform in this subject area.  The federal government has a hand in this latter effort.  As stated in a previous posting, it funds the Center for Civic Education and, through the Center, the Educational Testing Service.  Jointly, they produce the Nation's Report Card, which includes results emanating from testing in civics.

Testing results are not used to assess student progress, as those tests are administered to a random sample of students, but to assess how well schools in general are doing in instructing students in various subject areas.  An upcoming posting will look at this testing to see how individualistically oriented it is or how much it reflects natural rights’ thinking.

The federal effort to date, like the prominent textbooks, has shied away from explicit individualistic language.  The individualist language is derived from the fact that it avoids moral questioning or references to duties and obligations.  The writers of the test instruments, both in terms of the test items or the standards that are devised to generate the test items, stick to the structural attributes of governance and politics and avoid delving into what those elements should be.

A look at the process the Center uses to produce the test can be helpful.  To test students, the Center for Civic Education, before producing the test items, develops the standards upon which the questions are based.  This process has generated a book containing those standards.  The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the National Standards for Civics and Government or go online and look up the national standards; the most recent edition that a search online reveals was published in 2014.

That publication, probably more than any other, reflects the ongoing position of the US Department of Education regarding curricular content for civics.[1]  Until a few years ago, this writer had been looking at these efforts for some time.  Full disclosure, this writer served on a team charged with writing test items during the early 2000s. 

Starting with the next posting, this blog will review the content of those standards.  But before turning this blog over to that effort, one more point for this posting.  It strikes this writer that when one looks at the officialdom of social studies at the national level, one can sense that a change of direction might be in the works – hopefully, the C3 Framework (see citation #1) indicates a more normative direction.  Time will tell.

---

[1] Of recent vintage, the federal government’s Department of Education efforts has included a joint project with the professional organization of social studies educators, the National Council for the Social Studies.  That project has issued a set of national standards for civics.  To see the product of that effort see 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.’’

A NATURAL RIGHTS CURRICULAR DIRECTION

[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.]

This posting picks right up from the last one.  That posting observed that civics education in US schools has been guided by the natural rights view of governance and politics.  In terms of values, they place in priority natural liberty[1] above all other values and that leads to many concrete consequences.  The consequences range from ignoring serious challenges to the political society of the US to resulting in an instructional approach devoid of the very humanness politics entails.

To illustrate with a simple example, a teacher who might be guided by an alternative construct, federation theory, might on the first day of classes begin by having students reflect on how the government is an extension of who they are as a people.  The discussion would be general, and the teacher might want to just get a handle on how students think and feel about government. 

A look at the first recommended activity in the Magruder book, a popular high school textbook, suggests the following:

As students get settled, ask them to answer the following question:  What have you done recently that involved government that affected you or someone you know?  (Sample responses:  rode on a public bus; obeyed street signs; attended a public school)

Then have each student describe at least four useful things government does for its citizens.  Have students share their ideas.[2]

Right off, the student is defined as a consumer of government services.  As such, that mindset encourages the view that the government is something apart from citizens, not an extension of them. 

Yes, too much can be made of this example.  This questioning that is suggested could be one in which the author of the textbook believes it is initially important to establish government’s relevancy to some practical concern – riding a public bus.  But in reviewing this and the other popular textbooks, one can analyze their content to see if this initial tone reflects what they contain – this blog will proceed to do so for the Magruder book and one other popular textbook. 

And that tone communicates that the government is merely a service dispenser – services rendered in exchange for tax dollars spent.  Or stated another way, what the Constitution establishes is a marketplace for public services not the protector of a societal partnership.

In addition, this message places the emphasis on individualism – as contained in the natural rights construct in which students are encouraged to develop their own values and goals.  Consequently, it will have students relate to society from self-centered points of references.  There is nothing inherently wrong with asking students to hold their interests as being important or of value.  But to impart those interests within a federated arrangement, the questioning needs to be contextualized in how those interests relate to justice and civility. 

Without that context, the natural tendency is for the young student to be introduced to the subject without a concern for what constitutes good citizenship.  In that void, natural tendencies take hold and those tendencies easily legitimize self-centered biases. 

This is so not because of a logical necessity for them to be so judged, but because of human nature.  An absence of any direction toward responsible civic posturing will give license to students to see social conditions as only opportunities to promote self-serving values and goals.[3]  He or she will see civic issues from a “what's in it for me?” angle.  People need to be taught a level of civic responsibility; it doesn’t come naturally.[4] 

There are many levels of intensity in which civic oriented pedagogical objectives can be sought.  But whatever level one sees as a reasonable counterweight to total self-indulgence, that level needs to be taught and encouraged in young citizens if we expect a corresponding level of civil behavior to manifest itself.

For the sake of discussion, in terms of even the staunchest believers in the natural rights construct, they still believe that citizens, no matter what their personal values are, must be responsible enough to obey the laws.  If limited to a concern over law abiding behavior, then what is the purpose of government? 

The only positive role that government would have is to provide sought after services and if this perspective prevails, it encourages the citizen to take on the role of a consumer.  Government, as has been pointed out in describing the natural rights' view, is pictured as this large overarching institution that exists to render services.  Under this view the citizens are the consumers.  By paying their taxes, they are portrayed as entitled to those services in much the same way as shoppers are entitled to the services of a private vendor. 

Under this approach, government loses a lot of its “of the people” and “by the people” qualities and maintains only its “for the people” reason for existence.  This message, while not explicitly expressed in civics instruction, is assumed in the presentation that textbooks provide. 

Since the overwhelming number of teachers relies on the given textbook to define what the content of their instruction is, then how a textbook approaches a subject is central to what is taught.  The entailed strategy, therefore, tends to ignore communal concerns and the promotion of a citizenry aligned to mutual responsibilities and obligations.

There is also evidence that in addition to textbook writers, the federal Department of Education has favored, through its funding practices, this bias.  It funds organizations in the field that, more or less, utilize this natural rights construct as their theoretical base.  This has been the expressed preference of the federal government until an apparent shift of late.  This shift will be described shortly in this blog.

But until that recent effort, the federal government, in the language it uses to describe grant related funding (either in its directives or in the products those grants have produced) assuages the more virulent individualistic forms of the construct.  But, even in its apparent shift, it has not promoted another organizing ideal or concept to challenge or replace this prevalent perspective.[5]  

For example, significant federal funding has gone to the Center for Civic Education and to the Educational Testing Service to produce the National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) testing program known as the Nation's Report Card.  As part of its testing, NAEP includes civics.  That testing in large measure is based on standards developed by the Center for Civic Education. 

The language of that organization has adopted more concern for civic engagement and related duties.  But success is still based on the ability to do well on tests that in turn rely on information contained in utilized textbooks.  That testing reflects the point being made here and will be reviewed in this blog in an upcoming posting.

This posting will stop here in its lead up to analyzing two of the earlier cited textbooks.  This blog will review the content of the above cited textbook, the Magruder book,[6] and also the Clencoe book.[7]  Between them, they account for most of the reading material distributed to high school students for the course, American government.  By doing so, that will basically define the civics curriculum that American school districts implement.

---

[1] Natural liberty is was captured by the following citation:  “[John] Winthrop identifies ‘natural liberty’ as the liberty ‘common to man with beasts and other creatures.” It is, in other words, the “liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good.’ Importantly, this type of liberty resists all authority and ultimately, is the source of moral evil.”  See “The First ‘On Liberty,’” Intercollegiate Studies Institute:  Educating for Liberty, October 28, 2011, accessed on July 1, 2018, https://faculty.isi.org/blog/post/view/id/686/.  Emphasis added.  A more common account of this concept is a liberty in which everyone has the right to decide his/her values and the rights to live accordingly as long as he/she does not prohibit others of the same options.

.

[2] Daniel M. Shea, Magruder’s American Government – Teacher’s Edition, 4.

[3] A whole rationale for capitalism centers on this notion.  Capitalism works because it in effect targets and gives incentives for people, within certain parameters to seek their self-interests.  Jonah Goldberg calls the success of market economies to harness individual self-interest as “The Miracle.”  See Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

[4] Natural tendencies do encourage social ties especially with those seen as members of one’s group.  A person naturally wants approval by those deemed important, but that sense of linkage does not override tendencies to manipulate situations to garner sought after desires.  This is especially true for most young people during adolescence.  Therefore, such “attachment” drives do not inhibit opportunistic behaviors that tread on other’s interests or rights.  This blog has addressed the challenges of adolescence (see “Stages in Hegel’s Maturing Process,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics – a blog, November 16, 2018, accessed April 28, 2020, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018/11/stages-in-hegels-maturing-process.html.)  Also see Philip Selznick’s reporting of Hegel’s maturation model in Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1992).

[5] See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).  Of particular interest see Chapter 1, “C3 Framework of Standards.’’

[6] Daniel M. Shea, Magruder’s American Government (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2019).

[7] Glencoe United States Government:  Democracy in Action (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill/Glencoe, 2010).