[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/ .
No comments:
Post a Comment