QUESTIONS TO ASK OF QUESTIONS

I once read somewhere the notion that while it is hard to find a needle in a haystack, it is infinitely more difficult to find that same needle in a stack of needles. In other words, for those who do not want to be found, it is useful to blend in. Taking this notion to consider another concern, what about a civics teacher who has to engage in discussing political issues: should he or she blend in with any prevailing beliefs that might exist in the community he or she serves or should he or she dare to go against the grain? There are schools that are situated in fairly homogeneously populated areas. Then, again, there are communities that are highly diverse. And, of course, there are those schools that serve communities of intermediate diversity. It is, if desired, easy to blend in in communities that are mostly in agreement over basic political ideals. One only needs to parrot those beliefs. Yet when one gets to know a community, no matter how homogenous it seems to be – given that it is made up of humans – one will find significant variance in what is considered politically optimal or what is considered prudent political behavior.

The more abstract a political belief is, the more apt one is to find agreement among individuals. For example, I am fairly sure that the agreement level with the proposition that citizens should have the right to elect their leaders is a position that enjoys nearly one hundred percent agreement – at least in the US. But as one gets more and more specific in trying to decide what a policy should be, it is more likely that citizens will find points with which they disagree. I heard today that a city up North is having a big fight over whether to build a new bridge connecting the city to Canada. In that city, given the expense of building a bridge, the taxes involved, the inconveniences construction will entail, and the potential, on-going expenses the bridge will accrue, local citizens will probably disagree to varying degrees with whether the bridge should be built or not. So, classroom discussions will probably be more likely to be heated if the controversy being considered is one that students can easily visualize – i. e., a topic that is concrete as opposed to abstract.

Let me be a bit more precise with the use of the word, “discussion.” A discussion is a classroom activity in which students, in response to a question or topic, will express their individual opinions, descriptions, and other information that gets at or progresses toward providing a position to the question or topic. A single position need not emerge from the discussion, but students, by expressing where they stand on the issue, get the opportunity to clarify how they think and feel. By doing so, they might reflect as to the wisdom of their own beliefs and, on rare occasions, might even change their minds. Of course, issues students find relevant will be more apt to be emotionally engaging and, therefore, lend themselves to soliciting discussion. I used to teach in Miami, Florida where most schools in the district allowed, at that time, students to wear shorts. My school didn't and this was a constant bone of contention with our students. Parenthetically, the school now has a uniform requirement but back in the day, shorts was the issue. As a civics or government teacher, I wanted my class time to be taken up with more important concerns – at least more important by my estimation.

So here we go: how should teachers choose those questions or issues that they will use for discussion in their classrooms? I will be up front: I wanted questions that would illicit heated discussions, but not so heated that they would cause students to shut down and not participate. By heated, I mean not only an issue that evoked an emotional response, but a response that was divided, resulting in students eagerly taking up both sides – or varied sides – of the argument. In the latter case, when emotions and division ran too high, students might stop discussing because opposing positions were seen as too extreme. Often this perceived extremism would preclude students from accepting the factual claims posed by their opposing classmates. What would such a position be like? As an example from history class, if I, in a discussion with you, argued that the US entered World War II to advance its imperialist interests, you might consider such a statement as so contrary to your understanding of the facts that you might conclude that further discussion would be futile. You might opt to say “whatever” and shut down your participation in the discussion we were having. As a teacher, someone who should understands not only his or her students, but the community from which they come, he or she should develop a sense as to what will work. But this whole area of concern is a bit more complex.

While a teacher might not bring up some questions for discussion, he or she will still need to bring up those issues that demand attention, even if discussion is not the best strategy in those cases. For example, if you work in a highly evangelical community, you can't totally ignore abortion as a legitimate area of contention. It is just too important in our national elections if not in the community's local elections. And a teacher's job is not to bolster the biased views of the community, but to get the students to, at least, understand pro-choice arguments and appreciate the logic that supports them. The same can be said of pro-life arguments in liberal communities. Short of that, students will not understand the arguments of those with whom they disagree. All good citizens should understand both the arguments of pro-choice and pro-life advocates in order to develop a responsible position of their own concerning the issue of abortion. Of course, the same can be said for all the contentious debates that reflect our current political environment.

If you get the notion that trying to decide what issues and/or questions are prudent to include in classroom discussions is a bit difficult, I would say you are right. Any observation of our political environment must recognize that our debates run along ideological lines. What that means is that most of the contentious positions people take reflect an organized schemata of beliefs one can cast as a worldview. While at times the liberal-conservative arrangement of political beliefs can be an oversimplification, for most discussion topics, the continuum is useful in trying to organize the array of political beliefs and positions held by citizens. Each conglomerate of ideas can be cast as a worldview of political realities.

Cognitive scientists have some insights that are useful in this whole area of concern. For example, George Lakoff writes that in order to describe a worldview, let's say the conservative worldview, a cognitive scientist is wise to consider several concerns:

• One, a description of a worldview must categorize the array of positions making up that worldview, but which covers different issues, as a single, reasonable whole. For example, positions against gun control and for pro-life need to be described as related to each other under the logic of conservative thinking.
• Two, a description of a worldview must provide reasons for why opposing positions to the worldview are found to be puzzling by those who hold the worldview. This demands a description of the worldview that transcends the thinking of what is believed to be right and understands why what falls outside that view is not only rejected, but also found to be beyond the realm of understanding. It is this condition that poses such a challenge to teachers who are striving to get students to be reasonable when analyzing the positions of those with which they don't agree.
• And three, the description must make clear why the worldview chooses some options over others; specifically, why the worldview chooses the topics, words, and discourse forms it utilizes.¹

A civics teacher needs to become sufficiently familiar with cognitive construction of political beliefs and ideals so as to be able to make responsible decisions over which issues to bring up in class and to then decide which instructional strategies he or she will use in handling those issues.

Analyzing how students view political issues is something a civics teacher needs to address in determining what topics will make up his or her lessons. Often, students will reflect worldviews they bring from home. Sometimes, the worldview expressed in a home is amply supported by the political culture that prevails in the region or area in which the home is situated. And hence, the question of whether a teacher is to be the needle that distinguishes itself or merely blends in becomes an important one and one that might call for a good dose of courage to answer and to act upon productively.

The above is meant to suggest questions that civics teachers might ask of the content they are considering and of the students they teach. Looking beyond the students, the communities from which they come from is a source of information that will help the teachers analyze the students, the content, and the challenges which they confront.

1Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.