An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …
By way of background, this posting continues a dialectic argument that
counters the prevalence of the parochial/federalism construct as the main view
of governance and politics – that prevalence held in the US until the end of
World War II. To gain a historical
appreciation, in those years after the war the nation shifted to the natural
rights view – a highly individualist view of governance and politics – that
encouraged a set of values, theories, and preferences that has, more than any
other view, guided the way Americans see how they should behave politically.
Among those adopted views
was a preference for a political systems model, adoption of a transactional
approach to politics, and a diminution of communal sentiments and values that
were central to the parochial/federalist view.
The newer view did favor higher degrees of equality – as defined by the
natural rights view[2] – which led to such developments
as the civil rights movement among African Americans. It also affected how educators have run the
nation’s schools, including those schools’ curricula.
In that vein, this blog
has presented the natural rights view of how education should be run, and how it
should develop its approaches to instruction, especially in terms of content. To assist that effort, this blog has utilized
Joseph Schwab’s commonplaces of curriculum.[3] It is now ready to report on the last of
those commonplaces, the milieu.
The Milieu
The milieu is defined as
the general social environment of the classroom and the school site. For the purposes of this dialectic argument,
the milieu is seen as being affected by the following factors: the expectations of schools, the youth
culture found at school sites, and the socio-economic status of schools’
student bodies.[4] Christopher Hurn places a great deal of
emphasis on these factors in his description of the sociological make-ups of
American contemporary schools.
Specifically, this
argument will provide answers to the following questions:
·
How do
current expectations of schools affect the implementation of a natural rights
construct?
·
How does
the socio-economic status of individual school populations affect the implementations
of a natural rights construct?
·
How does
the youth culture of a school affect the implementations of a natural rights construct?
Expectations of Schools
The expectations of
schools are derived from the prevailing social-cultural values of the American
people. The logical assumptions people
seem to share is expecting that their schools support, in the school’s civics’
curriculum, the values they hold toward government. Salem Middle School in Lithonia, Georgia
offers a typical list of general expectations and one can readily see their
civic quality. Here is their general
comment followed by a list of expectations:
The
expectations, rules, procedures and consequences of [a teacher’s] classroom are
intended to keep the classroom environment safe, orderly, and productive. Please respect the rules so that we can
maximize learning time together. The
rules are not hard to follow, nor are any of them “out of the ordinary.” They are simply expected behaviors for high
school students in this classroom. If
you have any questions about any of these rules, or why they are in place, you
have the right to find out – please ask me as soon as possible. There should never be a rule that does not
have a purpose!
Thank
you for your cooperation!
CLASS
EXPECTATIONS
1.
Respect yourself,
the teacher & others …
2.
Put forth
your best effort at all times …
3.
Be prepared
for class each day …
4.
Follow
directions when given …
5.
Pay
attention, participate and ask questions …
6.
Preserve a
positive learning environment …
7.
Take responsibility
for your actions …[5]
Each of these expectations are followed by further clarification; so,
for example, number 6 has three further statements, the first being “Student
actions that interfere with teaching or learning in the classroom will NOT be
tolerated.”[6]
This example is included
for a couple of reasons. One, as already
mentioned, readers can detect a civic orientation to these directions. Elsewhere, this blogger has pointed out that
under the natural rights view, public school instruction avoids the promotion
of values with one exception. That
exception has to do with school governance.
Misbehaviors will “NOT be tolerated.”
That is, good behavior is valued.
Two, one can detect the
natural rights’ bias for transactions.
Students are to behave and participate in classroom efforts; in
exchange, it is understood that they will be educated. Or stated another way, there is no concern
for a common good; all goods are stated in terms of personal advantage. And three, as transactional exchanges go, all
references are directed at individual interests – not the communal welfare of
the class or the school.
John Goodlad addresses
these biases. That is, he developed a
series of goals for the typical American schools by analyzing curricular
documents from a sampling of districts.
He identifies this list of goals:
· Develop knowledge of the basic workings of the
government …
· Develop a willingness to participate in the
political life of the nation and community …
· Develop a commitment to the values of liberty,
government by consent of the governed, representational government, and one’s
responsibility for the welfare of all …
· Develop an understanding of the
interrelationships among complex organizations and agencies in a modern society
and learn to act in accordance with it.[7]
This listing was formulated in 1984 and represents a remnant of a
federal leaning. How? By, at least, giving communal factors some
mention (notice “welfare of all” and “understanding interrelationships” which
can be interpreted as being federal).
But “interrelationships” can also refer to a systems approach for
dealing with organizations such as schools as holistic/interrelated entities
consisting of parts, including staffs, clientele, and/or serviced people.
But, as ironically put by
the online site, “Partners,” it states that:
Americans usually view every person as [a] self-sufficient individual,
and this idea is important to understanding the American value system. Everyone
is their [sic] own person, not a representative of a family, community, or any
other group.
You may view this as rather selfish and egotistical, or as a
welcomed freedom from the restraints of family, community, social class, etc.
Yet, this self-centered attitude prevails in American culture—placing the most
importance on the individual, not the group.
Likewise,
U.S. Americans do not like to think of themselves as being dependent upon
others or as others being dependent upon them. This can affect the boundaries
placed on personal relationships, which starts with friendships.[8]
This last quote captures what it means to adopt the natural rights view.
Beyond that, though, Goodlad’s listing above
reflects a basic support for the political system model in the study of the US
government and its associated values as defined by natural rights advocates. And with these initial observations regarding
[9]the
milieu, this posting ends. The next
posting will continue to describe this individualism and how it affects policy
preferences and schooling.
[1] This
presentation continues with this posting. The reader is informed
that the claims made in this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or
knowledge of this blogger. Instead, the posting is a representation
of what an advocate of the natural rights view might present. This
is done to present a dialectic position of that construct. This series of postings begins with “Judging
Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.
[2]
Natural rights advocates define equality as individuals having equal standing
before the law. They do not include in
their definition any notion of equality regarding specific living conditions
such as meeting minimum economic welfare standards.
[3]
Joseph Schwab presents his conception of the
commonplaces of curriculum development – they are subject matter, students, teachers, and milieu. See William
H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective,
Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:
MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).
[4] These factors are identified by Christopher Hurn. See Christopher J. Hurn, The Limits and
Possibilities of Schooling: An
Introduction to the Sociology of Education (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1993).
[5] Ashley Owens, “Ms. Owens’s Classroom Expectations,
Rules, Procedures and Consequences, Salem Middle School (n.d.), accessed
October 19, 2022, https://salemms.dekalb.k12.ga.us/ClassroomExpectationsRulesProceduresandConsequences.aspx.
[6] Ibid.
[7] John I. Goodlad, A Place Called School (New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1984), 53.
[8] “Individualism,” Partners (n.d.), accessed
October 19, 2022, https://pips.partners.org/life-in-the-united-states/american-culture/individualism.aspx#:~:text=Americans%20usually%20view%20every%20person,community%2C%20or%20any%20other%20group. This “Partners”
refers to an online site sponsored by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and
Massachusetts General Hospital.
No comments:
Post a Comment