[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.]
By way of reviewing many of the postings
of the past year, this blog of late has recounted what they have to say over
the dysfunctional state of civics education.
Dysfunctionality here is defined as how distant, conceptually, the
civics curriculum of the nation has veered away from federalist aims and
goals. The focus in this blog has been
on the textbooks that most American government teachers employ at the high
school level. The shortcomings that those
books exhibit can also be found in the middle school civics textbooks as well.
In
addition to the textbooks, the reader can check out other evidential documents
in a report this writer offers online.[1] That evidence portrays what civics educators,
particularly those holding powerful positions at the district, state, or
national levels, want to accomplish in civics classrooms. This posting reports what this writer judges
those aims and goals are and their consequences.
Their
overall bias is to continue a curricular thrust that began in the mid twentieth
century mark. That is to promote a
language and tone in instruction that relies on a “scientific,” objectified
approach. Despite various promises such
an approach claims – an unbiased view and methodology by which to approach the
subject matter – the overall content derived from such language does have
detrimental consequences.
A term that captures these consequences
is anti-federalist messaging. Or stated
more descriptively, this messaging communicates lessons that work to degrade
the partnership qualities that the US Constitution establishes. Instead of promoting a more communal, inter
relying nature of citizenship, what is communicated is a consumerist role for
each citizen – one in which he/she participates, to various degrees, in a
competitive process for favorable public policy.
As such, each citizen’s attention
focuses on advancing personal interests, much as one does in the various
economic markets in which one participates.
And as such, the approach exhibits a natural rights view of governance
and politics in which each member of the populous defines his/her personal values,
goals, and, therefore, interests.
To do so, the curriculum pursues a set
of goals. To begin, it limits its
descriptions and explanations to the structural, procedural, and functional
accounts of the various elements of the political system. Some of those elements exist outside
government (interest groups, political parties, etc.) and some within
government (the various branches of government, various departments, agencies
of the bureaucracy, etc.). These elements
are presented as the necessary, objectified elements which allow the grand
system of competition to exist.
They also provide an overall view of
government as having this refereeing role as the various competitors go about
their efforts to gain favorable results.
That is, the curriculum presents government as agent, but does not
really give students a realistic explanation as to how power among the
competitors outside or within government works to determine winners and losers.
This
curriculum does reasonably cover the “waterfront” of the various elements that
do exist and play the various roles entailed in this grand competitive arena. And one can attribute to the curriculum a
sincere effort to communicate that information that a knowledgeable citizen
needs to at least get started in his/her seeking favorable public policy.
As continually pointed out, the
information is primarily structural in nature.
It lacks, though, the human qualities one associates with influence and,
therefore, what it takes to win. While it
almost totally ignores feedback or reaction to issued policies (no small
omission), this writer has little to complain about with what is
offered. He views that the curriculum
and its offerings, textbooks and other materials, as great information sources
that could be employed in a more comprehensive approach.
Yes, a curriculum and its materials can
be more federalist in nature, but a realistic expectation of changing what is to
what should be is overwhelming and the needs for a more useful civics program
cannot wait. The answer, therefore,
needs to be in changing the mindset of teachers in how they see the content, as
opposed to the teaching styles they employ in the classroom.
One
should keep in mind Daniel Elazar’s reasons[2]
for studying governance and politics.
One reason is to understand why politics manifests itself as it
does. At least, what exists in
classrooms provides students with a good sense of who is involved and where
they are involved in making governmental and political decisions. It gives students a sense of how things get
done. But this coverage, at best, is
simply too superficial even if the materials – specifically textbooks – are
bulky and heavy.
And in terms of Elazar’s concerns for
justice and civility, this curriculum, as it is currently practiced, is
seriously deficient. A curriculum that
reflects a natural rights view cannot meet the challenges the current political
environment presents to the nation. That
view simply ignores, to a serious degree, the communal, collaborative, and mutuality
qualities this polity needs to enhance. It
is too self-centered to encourage the national partnership to function as such and
be able to advance itself in a healthy fashion.
[1]
As a
reminder, the online site referred to can be found at the URL, https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSQxMfz-ILTNUq-qUXwCK-VjkQ55HWCY7lj6tCmAaaH53Z2B8jQfmhb_cfvaSbXr-4U6nQb1p4wdLJB/pub .
[2]
Daniel J.
Elazar, Exploring Federalism
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of
Alabama Press, 1987).
No comments:
Post a Comment