An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …
Demographic
Teacher Information (cont.)
Given the raw demographic information
which offered data that pointed to high levels of dissatisfaction among
teachers and were shared in the last posting, the implication is that social
studies teachers and teachers in general, would be amenable to reasonable curricular
change. That change could emphasize duty
and responsibility as well as individual rights.
Duty and responsibility can be
extended to issues of school performance and whether students are citizens of their school
communities. If so, what are their
duties and responsibilities as they use up the resources assigned to the
schools? Surely included in any such
determinations would be for students to apply themselves seriously to their
academic lessons.
Such a change would be entailed with
the adoption of the parochial / traditional federalist construct and would
emphasize, along with duty and responsibility, an outlook that would bolster a communal
orientation. This orientation is exactly
what seems to be needed given the general concerns the data seems to be
indicating and not limited to cheering for the school colors at a football game
(usually an expression of one’s ego), but as an extension of identity as a
member of a community.
In terms of a construct to address these concerns, it would need
to have a moral component, as the parochial federalist construct would include. One aspect of such curricular content would
be what is currently called character education. Marilyn Price-Mitchell writes,
While teachers are
hired to develop children’s skills and abilities in academics like reading,
writing, history, geography, and math, there is a lot more going on in the
classroom than meets the eye.
Opportunities abound
for students to develop hope, fairness, humor, valor, appreciation, and many
other personal strengths that lead to fulfilling lives. For many teachers, this
is a natural extension of the job they do on behalf of children.
Building character
strengths is the mutual responsibility of families, schools, and communities.[2]
This concern for federalist/communal messaging is not new. Back in 1991, James S. Leming stated that in
a Gallop poll, the “development of character” ranked highly with fifty percent
support rating among teachers as a useful goal in education.[3] The teachers also indicated that students
should be thinking critically and constructively about society. And these teachers pre-dated more recent
calls for students to think critically and constructively about their
communities and the broader nation.[4]
Of course, the application of Socratic dialogue techniques has
been promoted regarding traditional American republican values, as called for
in the described methodology that social studies literature recurrently prescribe. It calls for students to think critically and
constructively about timeless issues that face the maintenance of the nation’s
republic.[5]
In addition, teachers in a recent study had a distinct
orientation toward citizenship transmission.
That is, the transmission of the nation’s founding values – such as republican
values and civic virtue – seems a most appropriate goal for the application of
this orientation. Asiye Toker Gokce
found in a survey of young student teachers,
According to the results, the participants
indicated that students should acquire 20 values at schools. These values are
listed as virtue, respectfulness, affection, conformity, sympathy, patriotism,
humanism, equality, justice, tolerance, responsibility, democracy, modernism,
devotion, diligence, freedom, discipline, entrepreneurship, friendship, and
cooperation.[6]
One can generally find such values, to varying
degrees, as supportive of parochial federalist orientation toward citizenship. Again, citing the Leming article from above, the
transmission of those nation’s founding values is seen as relevant and vibrant in
promoting the partnership federalism represents. But are actual teachers sufficiently so
disposed? The next posting will address
this question.
[1] This presentation begins with the posting, “A Parochial Subject Matter” (March 11, 2022). The reader is reminded 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 parochial federalism might
present. This is done to present a
dialectic position of that construct.
[2] Marilyn Price-Mitchell, “Character Education: What Good Teachers Do Best,” Roots of Action
(n.d.), accessed June 1, 2022, https://www.rootsofaction.com/character-education/ .
[3]
James S. Leming, “Teacher Characteristics and
Social Studies Education,” in Handbook of
Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning, ed. James P. Shaver (New
York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1991), 222-236.
[4] For recent such references, see National
Council for the Social Studies, Preparing
Students for College, Career, and Civic Life, C3. Of particular relevance, this document
promotes what it calls an “inquiry arc.”
[5] Ibid., for example.
[6] Asiye
Toker Gokce, “Core Values in Education from the Perspective of Future Educators,”
cited through Sage Journals, May 8, 2021, accessed June 1, 2022, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211014485 .
