A DIVIDED FIELD

The less than optimal conditions described in the series of postings that preceded this one might solicit on the part of the reader a desire for change.  At least, that was the intent of the writer in posting them.  A less then optimal citizenry strikes at one’s sense of patriotism.  It is the intent here to direct that desire towards the nation’s civics curriculum. 

In one way or another, each of the conditions[1] described could be either eliminated or significantly ameliorated if our schools did a better job of teaching their civic lessons.  But when one looks at the condition of civics education, one finds a divided field of educators.  This is part of the problem. 

That portion of the curriculum that mostly deals with addressing the problems outlined in those postings is civics and social studies education.  And what is the state of social studies?  Ronald W. Evans, in his influential book, The Social Studies War:  What Should We Teach the Children?[2] gives an account of the history of social studies during the twentieth century.

His account is a look at the health of social studies.  As the book’s title indicates, things could be better.  That account outlines a debate that roughly pits the views of academics in the field against the views of those who man the nation’s school districts.  As stated in that book, the chasm is not so definite as it is generally experienced; that is, its specific focus has a great deal of overlap.  Here is what that means.

More specifically, the disagreement depicted is between those educators who promote the progressive view of education – open instructional strategies that have students formulate and defend their positions on controversial issues – and those who are aligned with essentialist ideals of promoting American cultural traits and attributes and the instructional biases that promote exposition and demonstration.  The overlap exists in that some teachers borrow from both positions.

The ongoing discussion, though, within social studies, usually takes one form or another of this very division.  But to begin this presentation of this complex debate which is the purpose of this posting and the postings to follow, Evans’ work is a good place to start.

While his book is of significant worth and is related to what this blog will reveal, it does not sufficiently and directly focus its analysis on the debate on which view of government and politics should dictate the content of civics and social studies in the nation’s classrooms. 

Evans’ book introduces the reader to one side of the ongoing debate, the critical theory view and how that construct bolsters multiculturalism.  And the book presents the challenges to such pluralism by describing and explaining the popularity of native culturalism that bolsters an Anglo tradition. 

That latter view is featured in such works as Cultural Literacy by E. D. Hirsch.[3]  Hirsch is concerned with the lack of basic knowledge he observes among students and how that deficiency stifles their efforts to understand US historical developments.

But the real debate within social studies and civics is not so much between multiculturalism and native culturalism as between two constructs:  the natural rights construct and the critical theory construct.  Specifically, the question is:  upon which construct, natural rights or critical theory, should the content of civics and social studies be based?

Evans’ work does not directly address this question; his aim is to highlight the concern about how social studies should bolster either the nation’s pluralism or its traditional, Anglo-based values.  But underlying Evans’ and Hirsch’s works is the assumption that the more basic debate, that of the two constructs – natural rights and critical theory – represents the only choices available.

This assumption is the product of what social studies educators are exposed to:  the official view of the establishment, the natural rights view, and that of most academics, the critical theory view.  This blog’s treatment of the debate makes no such assumption.

Instead, it expands the debate to include a third construct.  That is, there is another view, one that has a rich historical heritage within the minds of Americans and one that still today has an influence on how the nation’s citizenry thinks and feels about government, politics, and social relationships.  As readers of this blog know, that’s federation theory.

This blog has and will continue to weave a narrative that, in part, shares overall descriptions of each construct.  This will be further developed in subsequent postings with the formulation and rationale for the use of the federalist construct.  This blog will do that by further conveying its historical version, traditional federalism, and a more current version, liberated federalism.

The purpose of this posting and those that follow, is for the reader to consider how each construct identifies the following:  the sense of morality that motivates an adherent of any of these constructs to harbor the beliefs he or she holds; the view of government and politics each construct describes and explains; and the construct’s advocated views on citizens contributing to the common good.

---

[1] The conditions for those who didn’t read that series of posting is:  low levels of government/political knowledge, low levels of political engagement, low levels of political skills, low levels of civility, and high levels of criminal behavior.

[2] Ronald W. Evans, The Social Studies Wars:  What Should We Teach Our Children?  (New York, NY:  Teachers College Press, 2004).

[3] E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Cultural Literacy:  What Every American Needs to Know (New York, NY:  Houghton Mifflin Company, 1987).