This blog has presented a somewhat contradictory message. On the one hand, it has reported that
education is a conservative institution and yet it has also reported that one
of its core subjects, social studies (particularly civics education) went
through a transformational change in the late forties/early fifties. That is, it shifted from a curriculum led by
traditional federalism to one guided by the natural rights construct.
This had, in my estimation, profound
effects on how our schools taught government and politics. It changed from one that emphasized the
problems we faced as a democracy to a much more structural-functional approach. The concern became to teach students the
overall structure of government as an institution, created to meet and solve or
ameliorate those desires expressed by citizens.
That expression is funneled through institutionalized competitive
processes using established means and structures – interest groups, lobbyists,
political parties.
While this is transformational, this
blog has deemed the change as unwelcome.
Why? Because certain consequences
have been derived and they are seen as not good. One, the change has taken out a lot of the government
being “of and by the people” and has left only the “for the people” attribute
in place. In other words, the change has
helped institutionalize a segregated cleavage between the citizen and its
government.
Two, it has encouraged a systems view
of government which seriously encourages an objectified perspective of
government and politics. Or stated another
way, it has taken a lot of the humanness out of the study of politics. Politics in this form becomes reductionist
and forces become factors or variables as when measuring voting and non-voting,
legitimacy or lack of legitimacy, surpluses or deficits; that is, things that
can be measured, not understood and appreciated.
And three, in doing so, value
questions are short-changed. Despite
several attempts at introducing values education into the study of civics, they
have not been successful. The reason is
that they, in an attempt to be value neutral, have not been totally truthful in
containing political biases. As such,
those who have implemented such efforts, mostly unintentionally, have engaged
in subtle political messaging.
This is unavoidable, but the proper
thing to do is be forthright and provide a thoughtful rationale for what is
being presented. For these and other
reasons, the change of the last fifty to sixty years needs another
transformation. This blog is dedicated
to proposing and justifying such a change.
To be blunt, it is the position of this blog that American schools
should adopt a liberated federalist approach to the study of civics and
government.
But in this,
the change described in civics education and social studies is the exception –
at least that I am aware of – and the rest of education is pretty much
unchanged. Oh, as compared to about a
century or so ago, chalk boards were introduced to be later changed to white
boards and to computer imagery being able to be projected for the class to
see. Computers have made a difference;
hopefully, teachers are more apt to assign inquiry styled lessons since
students have a virtual library at their fingertips. But as for basic lesson structure and
attitudes and norms, schools are the same.
Of course, the
nation’s project at desegregating schools has been an enormous effort. In some cases, desegregation has led to
integration, but given the racial tensions that have boiled over this summer,
not enough. But our efforts continue and
our efforts have resulted in many more African-Americans filling prominent
positions in our economy – things do seem to be getting better.
Beyond these
areas, Americans seem satisfied with their schools; at least, there is no
concerted effort to change them. Oh,
they wish the schools were more successful in teaching, but they seem very
pleased that schools mirror their biases in terms of profound value
orientations. And again, this blog has
reported what they are. Along with the
above change in civics, a natural rights bias has Americans augmenting their
belief in an ideology of growth, achievement, success, and individualism.[1]
These general
aims translate into more specific goals:
individual accomplishment, competition, and coming out on top. Some – I would say most – Americans see this
as advancing the interests not only of the individual student, but also of the
community and nation. This is the
assumption derived from Adam Smith economics.
History has not, in the overall,
disproved such a notion; these capitalist values have proven very successful in
leading to untold riches. But the riches
have been punctuated by dire economic collapses – see: 2008 collapse or the Great Depression of the
1930s. On the other hand, even in times
of success, there is the social consequence in which certain unsavory qualities
seem to emerge.
Currently, and this blog has
documented, high levels of narcissism, selfishness, incivility, and even
criminality seem to characterize American social order. One can attribute these qualities to these very
biases American education promotes; it at least can be said to enable them. My next posting will review – again – the main
answer that the educational establishment has offered as an alternative,
critical theory.
[1] Allan Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:
Foundations, Principles, and Issues, (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2004).
No comments:
Post a Comment