[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.]
Anyone who has taught in a
common secondary classroom knows that there are meaningful limitations on how
much attention he/she can give an individual student. One can observe that there is room for some
of that and meaningful relationships might emerge as a teacher addresses a
particular student’s needs. Their interaction
can even lead to lifelong friendships; this writer can attest to that
eventuality. But this is the exception,
not the rule.
And beyond that, as the last posting points out, that
teacher’s expertise might not even approach the needs of some students; they
are of such a nature that those students need professional, psychological help. In addition, given the number of students
assigned to a teacher and the arrangement in which the teacher faces twenty to
thirty students at a time (sometimes even more), that teacher cannot provide
the resources – in terms of time or skills – many students need.
But that is not to say teachers are of no consequence. And a teacher has some tools at his/her
disposal. These tools relate to various
occasions. There are the one-on-one
conversations, but there are also what a teacher decides to present in his/her
lessons. This includes the subjects he/she
presents and the questions he/she asks the students to consider.
And in this, civics lessons, and beyond them, social
studies lessons, offer many suitable topics.
Therefore, there are many opportunities to bring up cases of how people
dealing with maturing issues handle various situations and challenges. They might be situations people face in
either contemporary times or from historical situations. Those situations can stretch from tort cases
in courtrooms to presidential decision-making in the White House – yes, even
presidents need to deal with maturation issues concerning themselves and those
with whom they deal.
The resulting lessons can be geared to address what
students are facing. This tension that
characterizes what young people face – their demand for more freedom and the
expectations of the social arrangements in which they find themselves – is usually
at the heart of many social conflicts.
And of course, social conflicts serve to be the “meat and potatoes” of a
civics curriculum. After all, civics looks
at politics and politics is about who gets what, when, and how. Those decisions are the product of
contentious competitions in the political arena.
A teacher so disposed to offer such lessons should keep in
mind that the object of such effort is to engage the students’ reasoning and
reflection. This is probably the most
important component of such lessons. The
main obstacle to students being able to maturate is their reluctance to reflect
and to avoid using their reason to any depth.
That, according to Jonathan Haidt,[1] proves to be an initial
stumbling block with most people at times when issues arise. The easiest reaction is to merely respond to obvious
elements of the situation in question and allow their feelings to hold sway. That is to be reflexive, not reflective.
And all of this has to do with the consciousness of those
who are affecting or are being affected by the challenge in question. Those consciousnesses tend to blanket the
situation instead of being targeted at the factors relating to the case put
before them. Such thinking goes to
either/or options and misses the nuances reality hold.
Part
of the challenge a teacher faces is to make those situations relevant to the
student. Beginning with issues that affect
the student or people he/she knows, they help teachers make his/her lesson relatable
to the student’s feelings. It’s not that
lessons should avoid student emotions – they motivate a person to take note –
but to avoid those emotions from taking over and preventing the student from
giving the situation sufficient thought.
This last suggestion might be a challenge. The teacher often needs to analyze what it is he/she is attempting to portray and find that aspect of it that does relate to
students. This is often an obvious choice,
but sometimes a bit of research or imagination helps as the teacher finds that
case study or statistic or newspaper item that has or depicts information relatable
to the students. Most important topics provide
such an angle if the teacher takes the time to find it.
While this blog supports the use of federated theory – as
opposed to natural rights theory – to guide curricular choices, the natural
rights view can provide opposing perspectives and arguments a teacher might
employ to encourage discussion. And
those who promote the natural rights view have legitimate insights to
share.
A
recurring concern natural rights advocates cite is how government policy
restrict illegitimately or unreasonably individuals from doing what they want
to do. Yes, the majority, through
legislative action, can at times do so.
A lot of the liberalization that emanated from the Warren Court, for
example, were overdue. What this shows
is that reality and justice can be highly nuanced.
Good
civics and social studies lessons pose difficult dilemmas that one needs to
think about so as to arrive at well-grounded and satisfying positions. What is promoted here is not indoctrination,
but a theory that not only identifies those dilemmas but offers a teacher
suggested questions he/she can ask students.
There
is the federated way of seeing things and there is the natural rights way of seeing
things. There is the communal way of
approaching a problem and there is the transactional way of doing so. An ongoing stream of questioning can be
founded on an overarching question: What
is the more mature way to proceed between the options each of these views offers? That could be the recurring, fundamental
question – in various forms and over various issues – a teacher might pose to
students.
[1]
Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good
People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment