This posting is the
next in a series of postings reviewing the National Council for the Social
Studies’, College, Career and Civic Life
(C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards). The reader is welcomed to review those
postings. The last posting looked at the
second category of standards, Participation and Deliberation: Applying Civic
Virtues and Democratic Principles.
The
third and last category of standards is Processes, Rules, and Laws. Here are those standards and the accompanying
commentary – thoughts that link the standard to federalist concerns. Since these first three standards are closely
related, the commentary will address all three of them simultaneously:
·
Individually
and with others, students evaluate multiple procedures for making governmental
decisions at the local, state, national, and international levels in terms of
the civic purposes achieved.
·
Individually
and with others, students analyze how people use and challenge local, state,
national, and international laws to address a variety of public issues.
·
Individually
and with others, students evaluate public policies in terms of intended and
unintended outcomes, and related consequences.
These standards are federal
if the subsequent instruction takes a further step. Not only should students make judgements over
the performance of governments or government agencies at various levels, but
they should learn how to interact with them and seek policy options those
agencies should choose. Yes, this
instructional aim is hinted to in previously listed standards, but not
addressed directly. And here is the
opportunity to get real.
Part of the value of the federalist
structure is that it allows for various levels of government to address various
types of problems. It also allows for
citizen to choose which governmental agency he/she addresses his/her claim or demand. In relation to this, it allows that choice to
match the political resources a voter might command.
For
most citizens, appealing to the national government for most problems is beyond
their means; but most citizens can take their demands to local governments. Now this might not be totally satisfying,
given that the nature of many problems; they take on national or even global
dimensions. But for the typical governmental
concern – e.g., getting a traffic light a certain intersection – federalism is a
highly functional form of governance.
And
this practical perspective can get citizens in the habit of interacting with
government and can lead to more expanding roles and actions: writing to an elected official, volunteering,
writing letters to the editor, participating in election campaigns, joining an advocacy
group(s), and the like. Not only can
this develop but the student, through appropriate instruction, can be
encouraged to reflect on what constitutes responsible engagement.[1]
·
Individually
and with others, students analyze historical, contemporary, and emerging means
of changing societies, promoting the common good, and protecting rights.[2]
This is the last
civics standard of the 3C Framework. As
such, it serves well as a summary, federalist standard. Admittedly, it could also be the summary
standard for a civics curriculum of a centralized, republican nation – such as
the French’s civics curriculum. But the
Common Core Standards project is submitted as the US Department of Education’s statement
as to what is the ideal in terms of curriculum and education and that refers to
a federalist polity.
As a matter of fact, by highlighting
the common good, the standards recognize that, at least, a primary priority of
this project is a collective or, better still, a communal concern. Yes, there should have been more commentary
on how one should weigh the common good vs. individual interest, but there is
no reference among all the 3C standards to an aim of self-interests although
self-interests – especially in a capitalist economy – are legitimate.
And this last distinction gets at why
the 3C Framework should have expended some space to make a more substantive reasoning
as to the boundaries between these two important matters. When it comes time to make
socio-political-economic decisions, where related values clash, people would be
helped by an educational experience that warned and otherwise prepared them to
make responsible decisions.
With that reservation stated, it is
the judgement here that the NCSS’ effort is enough of a green light to pursue a
civics curriculum that can be guided, in terms of content, by federation
theory. In so doing, a resultant
instructional approach can directly address those forces associated with the
natural rights view that undermine the societal health of this nation.
[1] This account has pointed out the prevalence of
disruptive political engagement in the US as pointed by Charles C.
Euchner. See Charles Euchner, Extraordinary Politics: How Protest and
Dissent Are Changing American Democracy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996).
[2] National
Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), College,
Career and Civic Life (C3 Framework for Social Studies State Standards),
34. Each of these standards are taken
from this source.
No comments:
Post a Comment