THE MAGRUDER AND GLENCOE CASE, PART V

[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 is currently attempting to provide the reader a sense of what image of governance and politics the best-selling government textbooks present to high school students.  This posting will rely on Magruder’s 2013 edition.  In that edition, Magruder’s veers toward providing a set of inserts that instruct students about how to perform various engaging practices in relation to their local political community, including the local government.

These inserts are entitled Citizenship 101 and while the feature was dropped by the 2019 edition, it does give the reader a taste of how an establishment publication treats political engagement when it chooses to address this topic.  Before starting, the reader might ask how inspiring the effort is or how likely students are, upon reading the material, apt to engage themselves with local political action.

Each insert is dedicated to a different topic:  debates, evaluating leadership, juries, letters to the editor, political campaigns, political roots and attitudes, polls, television news programs, using the internet, volunteering, and writing to public officials.  Perhaps the reader can add to what should be included, such as organizing a “grass roots” campaign.

Each insert takes up about half a page (the entry might take up the entire page, but a lot of the space is taken up with a photo or titling, leaving a good deal of empty space).  Given the font size and spacing of its usual text material, the information in these inserts would take up a good deal less than half a page if it were presented as part of the usual text.  The format is the same for all individual inserts. 

That format begins with a quote or an overall description.  Then there is an introduction to the topic, followed by a list of things to do in order to perform some action in relation to the topic.  For example, the list for evaluating leadership has three steps:  “decide what factors are most important to you;” “match the skills to the job;” and “compare their qualifications.”  For each step, there is a short “how to” explanation to help the student accomplish the step. 

Are these topics written in such a way as to bolster or enable social capital[1] or are they written to promote self-interest agendas as those would be more in line with a natural rights perspective?  This writer is disappointed that these entries are given such small emphasis, but some of the topics are related to social capital.  They are:  letters to the editor, political campaigns, political roots and attitudes, volunteering, voting, and writing to public officials.

Next is a closer look at the six of the twelve topics this writer feels should be highlighted, although whatever one finds in these entries, they are a very small part of this book.  That alone conveys the notion that what they contain is not considered sufficiently important.

This review begins with the insert topic of “Writing a Letter to the Editor.”  The institutionalized practice of local newspapers dedicating space, usually on their editorial pages, to letters from their readers is a way to encourage average citizens to voice their opinions, knowledge, and beliefs about current public issues.  It promotes active, public-spirited citizenry. 

So, how does Magruder’s treat this topic?  The insert begins with a sample letter to an editor:

Editor:

Regarding the article on additional budget cuts to public education (“Government Proposes Slashing School Funding,” May 9), I believe that every penny spent is a necessary investment in the future of this community.  As a junior at Westfield High School, I know that these cuts would place students’ futures in greater jeopardy.  Last year 15 percent of the teaching staff and 10 percent of all elective courses were eliminated due to severe reductions in funding.  These cuts ultimately impacted the quality of our education, and that is a sacrifice this town should not be willing to make again.

-Thomas Grey, St. Clairsville[2]

This letter couldn’t be a better example of lobbying. 

Take a public policy that negatively affects your interests, manipulate the pitch so as to provide a general welfare angle, and use language that denotes a concern for the community.  Interesting is the fact that textbook funds come out of the same pot of money as those funds affecting the budget cuts referred to in the letter.  Couldn’t another example been used? 

Anyway, this writer believes this example to be well within the guidance of the natural rights construct – a construct that promotes self-interest.  This judgement is further supported by the introduction:  when writing a letter to the editor choose a topic that “affects you” – this writer’s emphasis – “and your community.”  Notice the advice does not use the word “or” between “affects you” and “your community.” 

The rest of the insert lists steps one should take in writing his/her letter:  briefly summarize the issue, explain one’s position, make a suggestion, and identify the writer of the letter.  Given this advice, there would never be letters from middle class citizens about, for example, the plight of the poor or what we should do about undocumented citizens or the space program.  Why?  Because these sample issues are too far removed from a typical middle or upper-class individual or community. 

In short, in terms of writing to the editor, Magruder’s is far less than a promoter of community development.  It basically presents the topic as just another way to help students get what they individually deem to be their self-interests.  That is, it is addressed with little concern for motivations stemming from a more communal perspective.

A more directly related topic to community welfare or one that advances social capital is “Volunteering.”  This insert begins with a call to volunteer by President George W. Bush.  A few organizations are mentioned as well as the federal government’s efforts to facilitate volunteering. This includes USA Freedom Corps that acts as an information distribution service and as a connector between non-governmental organizations and citizens interested in volunteering.

The insert informs the reader that while 20% of young people engage in some sort of volunteering, the overall number of people volunteering has decreased.  The description does mention several sorts of activities that volunteers perform such as tutoring and maintaining hiking trails.  This information is presented in a matter-of-fact tone without any real effort to sell this “obligation.”  The information includes – as with the other inserts – a list of steps that an interested party should follow to hook up with a volunteering effort. 

They are:  make a list of interested activities, seek out opportunities in potential organizations that might recruit those interests, and make contact by emailing or calling.  As for seeking out opportunities, apparently teachers are a source of information to help a student find an appropriate organization or, in addition, a student can research using the Internet to find opportunities.  In making contact, the student is warned that he/she might need a resume or references.

The opinion here is that the insert could do a lot more to encourage this “opportunity.”  It could present case studies of actual volunteers.  It is a topic that should be given a lot more space.  Part of the insert mentions how the system depends on volunteers to provide services that are important but are not mandated by law or covered by government programs.  Perhaps a discussion about whether government should or should not provide some of these services might be suggested. 

In any event, the whole topic is treated as something quite inconsequential.  While the overall text benefits from having something about volunteering, it does not warrant the judgment, “well done.”  As a vehicle to promote social capital, Magruder’s effort on this topic does not reach even the level of adequacy.  This review of these inserts will continue with the next posting, but the reader can already ascertain the general efficacy of them in encouraging social capital among a young audience.

---

[1] Social capital is a societal quality 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] William McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013), 631.

THE MAGRUDER AND GLENCOE CASE, PART IV

[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.]

What follows, beginning with this posting and continuing in at least the next, is a closer look at the Magruder’s American Government[1] textbook and the Glencoe’s United States Government[2] textbook.  The aim is to see if each of these books portrays a natural rights view of governance and politics.  That is, do they portray governance and politics as that aspect of life in which one is primarily concerned with one’s unencumbered rights to determine life’s goals and aims and the right to pursue them short of prohibiting others of the same rights. 

Under such a view, one is free to compete with others on equal legal standing in just about all arenas including seeking disbursements of public services.  It is a view in which the individual is more like a consumer – sovereign entity – and sees the political system more in terms of a market arrangement; he/she pays taxes in exchange for those services.  As such, he/she is not a partner with others to pursue the common good within the context of a shared governmental arrangement.

For this posting, this writer used the indexes of these books to analyze whether the books have anything to say about selected communal ideas.  These ideas, if highlighted, would indicate the writers of the books were not guided by natural rights view, but instead a federalist view, encouraging a “we’re in this together” view.  The concepts are community(ies), community development, neighborhood(s), charities, and non-profit organizations.  One can justly see that these are the types of topics one would associate with the federalist quality, social capital.[3] 

So, what was found?  In Magruder’s (2013) there is no listing for community(ies), community development,[4] neighborhood(s), or charities.  There is no listing for non-profit organization(s), but there is one for non-governmental organizations (NGOs).   That text describes only that the United Nations works with NGOs in administrating several of its programs around the world.  While commendable, this type of information is not what bolsters social capital among high school students.

And in the 2019 edition, it does make a reference to nonprofit organizations in terms of their contributions to political campaigns.  These latter groups are national organizations and the information concerning the contributions is in the context of how the contributions are expression of 1^st Amendment’s protected free speech right.  Overall, in terms of community, Magruder’s has little to nothing to say.

What about Glencoe’s text?  There is an indexed reference to the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program.  That reference guides the reader to an insert that provides a short case study of an advocacy worker, Mary Ellen Beaver, working to establish the rights of migrant agricultural workers.  While this does reflect federalist values and is an example of someone exhibiting social capital, the description is not part of the text and probably would be easily ignored.  Other than that reference, the other concepts do not appear in the index.

But perhaps this selection of ideas is a bit too skimpy.  So, a list of other concepts is added.  They include “grass-roots” politics, political engagement, civic duty(ies) and responsibility(ies).  Limiting the search to Magruder’s 2019 edition and Glencoe’s 2010 edition, this is what was found:

Magruder’s –

·       A chapter subtitle, “Responsibilities, Duties, and Obligations of Citizenship” that gives an overview – in general terms – of what a member of a civil society should contribute.  The space allocated to this concern is about one and a quarter pages with the obligatory picture of John F. Kennedy (“Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country” fame) and references to Theodore Roosevelt and George Washington.  This appears on pages 34-35.

·       A definition for political efficacy as being when a person or group lacks any feeling of effectiveness when it comes to governance or politics is provided.

Glencoe’s –

·       Under a subchapter heading, “Citizen Participation,” there is a five-line “call” for citizen participation since it is a prerequisite of a democracy.  This treatment is very cursory.

·       In Chapter 14 there is a subchapter title, “Citizen Responsibilities,” that begins on page 395 (toward the end) and ends on page 397 (just before the end of chapter questions).  The subsection emphasizes the duty to vote and addresses the question, why do people not vote.  This treatment is also very cursory.  

·       And under the topic of Interest Group Organization, the rise of political action committees is highlighted, but the concern is mostly on how they affect national elections.

That’s it!

          The last two postings of this blog reviewed the tables of content for these various editions of these textbooks.  That review established that the overall approach of the texts is to mostly describe and to some degree explain the structure and processes of the American political system.  That review made the point that the texts mainly communicate a mechanical view of governance and politics. 

This posting provides evidence that, in addition to that overall view, the texts lack much concern for the more normative issues associated with governance or a concern for how and why citizens should opt for establishing and maintaining federated relationships among themselves.  The next posting will look at one text insert series in the Magruder, 2013 edition.  With qualifications and limitations, the inserts reflect a promising turn, but that initiative does not survive in a later edition, that of 2019.

---

[1] William McClenaghan, Magruder’s American Government (Florida Teacher’s Edition) (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2013) AND Daniel M. Shea, Magruder’s American Government (Boston, MA:  Prentice Hall/Pearson, 2019).

[2] Richard C. Remy, Glencoe United States Government:  Democracy in Action (New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill/Glencoe, 2010).

[3] Using the thoughts of Robert Putnam, social capital 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).

[4] In the 1993 edition, there is reference to community standards in association with the concern over obscenity and 1^st and 14^th Amendment rights.  In the 2019 edition there is reference to neighborhood segregation – mostly racial segregation.