THE MAGRUDER AND GLENCOE CASE, PART I

[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.]

If one wants to know what the content of government courses (the twelfth-grade version of civics) in the US is, just pick up a copy of either Magruder’s American Government or Glencoe United States Government:  Democracy in Action.  These are the best-selling textbooks of that course in the country.  District and state officials in charge of textbook choices – the “adopted” textbooks – have favored these two titles.  This blog goes over some of those books’ content to make a case, i.e., the natural rights construct is the guiding perspective determining the content of their pages and, therefore, of the nation’s government classes. 

To be clear, educators would not use this terminology to describe these books, but this account contends that whether conscious or not of this choice, this choice is in effect.  The logic runs in this way:  a general acceptance of natural rights thinking prevails within the culture and that, in turn, affects the educational establishment.  Further, when it comes to decisions regarding schools, those related school officials make decisions that are highly influenced by that perspective and that includes which textbooks to use, particularly when it comes to civics.

This posting reports on whether this chain of thought does in effect manifest itself in what these books convey.  This blog, with this posting, begins a content analysis of these textbooks.  Specifically, it will review the books and ask:  what is the assumed motivation of a student in his or her reading of the books’ content?  Is it to further the student’s role within the various groupings the student finds him/herself or is it to advance his/her knowledge of what is personally useful to know about government in terms of self-interest? 

Further, do the books cover the needs of organizations or other arrangements or do they focus on what the individual needs to know to seek personal aims?  This account expects that these issues are not addressed directly, but it hypothesizes that the language used by the texts assumes a particular tone or direction, one that basically says that when one wants or “needs” some service from government this is what he/she needs to know. 

But the aims to advance such federalist qualities as supporting social capital[1] and civic humanism[2] need to be more proactive in encouraging a disposition to support and bolster the values associated with those qualities.  The above questions ask for information that shed light on whether the texts’ content advance these two qualities.

In order to be somewhat efficient in this effort, this writer chooses several topics to zero in on:  community development, placing a demand on government, influencing local governmental policy, and describing or explaining a governmental agency or program that reflects a populous supporting social capital and civic humanism – e.g., Social Security. 

Before beginning this analysis, some context helps this effort.  This account offers an initial critique:  curricular offerings today have relied on a view of politics that can be described as the structural-functional approach.  This is an outgrowth of a political science construct known as political systems model that has been addressed earlier in this blog. 

In terms of this, this blog emphasizes how in the mid-20^th century, political scientists were convinced to incorporate more scientific methods into their research.  In relation to the concern of this posting, a serious problem exists with this influence.  And the problem exists with the approach that text writers and publishers use in determining the content of these textbooks. 

Specifically, these texts producers opt for a view of governance and politics that furthers reductionism or reductive language, i.e., language that is objectified and lacking in normative concerns.  As such, the texts avoid addressing either what might be considered “controversial” issues or issues that offend federalist values.  Federalist values hold the common good as an ultimate or trump value.[3]

To explain, the basic notion of reductionism is to conceptually dissect any aspect of reality on the belief that by doing so, one can look at the separate elements making up that reality so that after each element is viewed, one can add them together and understand them.  Using David Brooks’ words to explain what is being described here follows:

This way of thinking [reductionism] induces people to think they can understand a problem by dissecting it into its various parts.  They can understand a person’s personality if they just tease out and investigate his genetic or environmental traits.  This deductive mode is the specialty of conscious cognition – the sort of cognition that is linear and logical.

The problem with this approach is that it has trouble explaining dynamic complexity, the essential feature of a human being, a culture, or a society.  So recently there has been a greater appreciation of the structure of emergent systems.  Emergent systems exist when different elements come together and produce something that is greater than the sum of their parts.  Or, to put it differently, the pieces of a system interact, and out of their interaction something entirely new emerges.[4]

To the list of emergent systems, Brooks identifies, he can add governments. 

The structural-functional approach that textbooks adopt, including Magruder’s and Glencoe’s, portrays a view of government very much in this dissecting mode which characterizes reductionism.  As a result, one is left with a view of government more akin to what one uses to view a machine (as described previously in this blog), when what is needed is a view that sees government and politics not only as an organism, but as a reflective organism or even something more complex and evolving. 

What is needed is something that doesn’t dismiss political systems but is more encompassing.  The topics identified above, such as community, are chosen because they directly relate to social capital and civic humanism or what the NCSS’ C3 Framework[5] emphasizes, civic virtue.  The main purpose of this evaluative review is to see how much these textbooks encourage a student in one direction or the other between thinking in a communal mode or an individualist mode. 

This will not be anything like an extensive review; one is not needed.  For the purposes here, by asking a few targeted questions about a few topics of content, one can get a good sense of where the book’s emphasis is.  The questions guiding this analysis are again:  what is the assumed motivation of a student in his or her reading of the text’s content?  Is it to further the student’s role within a community or a federated arrangement or is it to advance his/her knowledge of what is useful to attain personal political/governmental ambitions? 

To be clear, by political/governmental ambition this account does not necessarily mean a pursuit of a career in politics or government.  It is referring to any desire one might have in which government action is necessary to fulfill.  This can extend from filling in a pothole to receiving a Social Security payment.  Of course, it also can include getting a government job.  Or in other words, does the chosen textbook cover the needs of organizations or other arrangements or does it focus on what the individual needs to know to advance private concerns?  Federation theory favors the former and natural rights view favors the latter.

---

[1] Social capital, using the thoughts of Robert Putnam, is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.  See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).

[2] Civic humanism, as Isaac Kramnick describes it, is a political being realizing his/her fulfilment through participation in public life and a concern with public good above selfish ends.  See Isaac Kramnick, “John Locke and Liberal Constitutionalism,” in Major Problems in American Constitutional History, Volume I:  The Colonial Era Through Reconstruction, edited by Kermit L. Hall (Lexington, MA:  D. C. Heath and Company, 1992), 97-114.

[3] See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).  Chapter 4 provides a federalist moral code.

[4] David Brooks, The Social Animal:  The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement (New York, NY:  Random House, 2011), 108-109.

[5] National Council for the Social Studies, Preparing Students for College, Career, and Civic Life C3.  This writer has a critical review of these standards in recently published book.  See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).

A CHANGE IN EMPHASIS? PART III

[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/ .