CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL THEORY, V

 

The last posting reviewed the elements of an instructional approach known as issue-centered teaching.  In a few words, the approach has teachers present controversial issues or topics – usually in the form of questions – so that students can research them, reflect on the information they discover, develop positions regarding the individual questions, defend their position(s) as they interact with other students, and settle on defensible positions as to what should be done regarding each issue. 

Of course, since a final position is never final, it is always subject to further change to accommodate any new information the students might come across or any changes they might experience regarding their relevant values.  In all of this deliberation, students are given the opportunity to clarify their values concerning the issue under consideration. 

As that posting emphasized, this approach should be fairly apolitical in that instruction simply presents the issues for student consideration along with relevant information, but not limiting that information to one side of any ensuing debate.  The aim is to present students with all or nearly all publicly available information without biasing some sources over others. 

The approach’s content and scope seem to be guided only by a desire to present students with issues that seem contentious at a given time, that contemporary voters are called upon to consider as they engage in their civic duties.  Supporters of this approach claim, as just alluded to, that it offers students the opportunity to clarify their related values.  The approach also strives to have students develop their advanced intellectual abilities.[1]

What this general review indicates is that the approach seems to be fairly neutral.  On the surface, one might interpret “issued-centered” inquiry as merely a restatement of the type of inquiry Lawrence Kohlberg,[2] Louis E. Raths,[3] or Fred M. Newmann and Donald W. Oliver[4] called for in their values education models. If applied, this blogger foresees that what will be studied by students are the “front page” issues of a particular day.  That is, this instruction will deal with issues that “sell” – they are accepted as what people care about at a given time.

Much of the instructional thrust of many former movements in social studies and civics, as was advocated by the New Social Studies of the 1960s, was in this vein. Its popularity among academics seems to vary from year to year, but overall, they have given this type of pedagogy a favorable standing.  Such approaches would be more in line with progressive advocates of the natural rights construct.

But what this blogger believes is that the rationale for this approach is a bit modest. They might not all consider themselves critical pedagogues, but their political leanings do at least seem sympathetic to the critical position. As this blogger stated in the last posting, he considers issue-centered approach as critical light.  Yet, those who support it do wish to maintain a distinction between critical pedagogy and the issue-centered instructional approach.  They represent this following sentiment:

 

Issue-centered learning is organized around existing and emerging societal and environmental global issues (i.e., water, health, poverty, climate, pollution, migration, energy, renewable resources) on a global and local scale and ensures that students develop the … characteristics, skills and competencies that complements the functional knowledge they learn and enables them to become leaders for a sustainable future …[5]

 

For example, advocates argue for the use of conflict topics, as opposed to consensus topics, to stir student inquiry.[6] The gist of that position seems to associate conflict topics with critical pedagogic concerns. Such an approach is highly congruent with the Freirian curricular thrust which was reviewed in earlier postings and is an unambiguous example of the critical approach.

As used in most of the issue-centered literature, the inquiries this approach encourages has led teachers to present their students with what this blogger considers as being euphemisms for critical inquiries.  Through the years, reviewing these issues or topics, one can detect a definite trend which is reflected in the following exemplary questions:

 

•                What is a legitimate government and where does its power originate?

•                When should governmental authority be ignored or rejected?

•                Should student newspapers have the same right to freedom of the press as other newspapers?

•                Should a student write a letter to the principal to protest censorship?

•                Should the colonists have protested British actions with violent demonstrations?[7]

 

What are not found are examples that might take the following form:

 

•                Should the running of the student newspaper be considered a part of the school curriculum and subject to the policies defined by the school’s educators?

•                Should school administrators set up well-organized processes to consider student concerns at the appropriate times?

•                Should the British authorities have used coercive force to put down the illegal activities of the colonists during, for example, the Boston Tea Party?

•                Should the state prohibit the termination of the life of a fetus and protect that human’s right to life?

 

Please don't believe that this blogger would use this second set of questions in a classroom; he uses them here to make a point.

The examples offered by advocates of this approach usually exemplify a politically liberal or left of center bias. They all question potential oppressive activities by those in power. As one reads through that literature, one can find similarly leftist examples.  As a matter of fact, they tend to surpass a liberal bias and can be considered a critical light bias (a more leftist view than what most would consider “liberal” biases).

On the other hand, the above examples offered as alternatives have a definite rightist bias. The point is that even if the methodology used maintains an “open discussion” format, the issues or content presented and the language used in that presentation, particularly if it is on an ongoing basis, can and would promote an ideological bias.

Freire,[8] in his instructional approach, is at least very open and direct about this point; he is out to fight oppression on people by the upper class. An open discussion format utilized by the “issued-centered” approach does not, through its questioning, eliminate a bias which can be judged to have an indoctrinating effect.

In citing the criticism of a social reconstruction or reconceptualization curriculum, William H. Schubert writes,

 

If they would become powerful enough to do so, the desire of educators to foist their political beliefs on children and youth is tantamount to indoctrination of a very serious kind. It sparks the memory of youth in totalitarian nations who are brainwashed to support a revolution or to spy on their own families and report infractions of rules. Even in less severe cases, the question arises as to the right of educators to play deity in the dictating of social change.[9]

 

Let this blogger be clear; he is of the firm belief that any civics instruction cannot totally avoid being biased. If nothing else, the instructional questions teachers ask will give them away. The aim is to be honest. This blogger doesn’t believe issue-centered advocates, at least as indicated by such text as that which is sponsored by the professional organization of social studies educators, are being honest in terms of their “openness.”[10]

This disinformation might not be intentional, but it is there, nonetheless. Perhaps being considered dishonest is too strong a term; after all, a lie resides in the attempt to deceive.[11]  But one can easily remind the supporters of critical pedagogy or its off-shoot, issue-centered curriculum, of their own admonition toward others: there is no such thing as a neutral approach to education, especially civics education.

Among the apparent problems of civics education is: how can one design a program of civics that is non-ideological, except for being committed to democratic principles? If a political orientation is unavoidable, would it not be democratically better to acknowledge the fact, identify the political basis of the curriculum, and have that basis, as much as possible, be true to open deliberation as conceptualized by the nation’s constitutional makeup?

---

[1] Anna S. Ochoa-Becker, “Introduction,” in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS Bulletin 93, eds. Ronald W. Evans and David Warren Saxe (Washington, DC: National Council of the Social Studies, 1996), 1.

[2] Lawrence Kohlberg, “The Cognitive-Development Approach to Moral Education,” in Curriculum Planning: A Contemporary Approach, eds. Forrest W. Parkay and Glenn Hass (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), 136-148.

[3] Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon,  Values and teaching:  Working with Values in the Classroom (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966).

[4] Fred M. Newmann and Donald W. Oliver, Clarifying Public Controversy: An Approach to Teaching Social Studies (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company, 1970).

[5] Katrin Muff, “Tag Archives:  Issue-Centered Education,” Positive Impact Blog (August 28, 2012), accessed May 24, 2023, https://positiveimpact.blog/tag/issue-centered-education/.

[6] Cleo H. Cherryholmes, “Critical Pedagogy and Social Education,” in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues:  NCSS Bulletin 93, eds. Ronald W. Evans and David Warren Saxe (Washington, DC:  National Council of the Social Studies, 1996), 75-80,

[7] These questions are offered in Ronald W. Evans, Fred M. Newmann, and David Warren Saxe, “Defining Issues-Centered Education,” in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS Bulletin 93, eds. Ronald W. Evans and David Warren Saxe (Washington, DC: National Council of the Social Studies, 1996), 2.

[8] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 1999).

[9] William H. Schubert, Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986), 32.

[10] As exemplified by Ronald W. Evans and David Warren Saxe, editors, Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS Bulletin 93, eds. (Washington, DC: National Council of the Social Studies, 1996).

[11]Perhaps the words honest and dishonesty are too strong. I believe these educators should know better, but I don't think they necessarily believe they are attempting to persuade their students of a particular political ideology. More likely, there is a lack of reflection regarding the use of this approach and its potentially indoctrinating effects.

CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL THEORY, IV

 

So, do critical approaches to instruction motivate students to participate in the activities and other instructional requirements that the construct demands or encourages?  Or, of more immediate concern, how prevalent is this construct in American classrooms?  This posting will address both questions.

According to a study conducted by a right-wing think tank, the Manhattan Institute, it concluded with this overall judgment:

 

Critical race and gender theory is endemic in American schools.  The vast majority of children are being taught radical CSJ [critical social justice] concepts that affect their view of white people, their country, the relationship between gender and sex, and public policy.  For those inclined toward a colorblind and reality-based ideal, these findings should serve as a wakeup call.  Unless voters, parents, and governments act, these illiberal and unscientific ideas will spread more widely, and will replace traditional American liberal nationalism with an identity-based cultural socialism.[1]

 

This blogger finds this general finding surprising.  As described below, he would have guessed that such instruction would be found illegitimate by most of the teachers with whom he worked.

          But before sharing a description of that experience, here are other recent findings – from a professional news source serving American teachers – as to the dispersion of political sentiments among the teacher corps.

 

[E]ducators surveyed largely said they tend to look at hot-button issues with a nuanced eye:

·       Forty three percent of the educators surveyed see themselves as “moderate.”  The rest were slightly more likely to lean to the left than the right.  Nearly 30 percent describe themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

·       Twenty seven percent view themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative.”

·       Seventy percent give Republicans a “D” or an “F” for their handling of K-12 policy.  Forty five percent give Democrats a “D” or “F.”  Each party gets an “A” from only 1 percent of respondents.

Although educators say they stay largely neutral in the classroom, that doesn’t necessarily apply to their lives outside of school.[2]

 

Such findings, at a minimum, sways one to be dubious of the Manhattan Institute’s uncompromising conclusions.

          Another source of information this blogger can use as alluded to above is his own experience, although as the years go by that experience has become less and less valued.  His last year in a secondary classroom as its teacher was 2000.  So, whatever their value might be, here are his recollections – at least as compared to the above reporting – of what is apparently the situation today.

            The settings of that experience consisted of assignments in two different school districts in Florida (Pinellas and Miami-Dade).  In total, he worked in five different schools and through the years, he worked with quite a number of other teachers (one of the schools in Miami-Dade was the largest in the state of Florida at that time with well over four thousand students). 

In all of that, he never even heard of a teacher wanting to adopt an approach to the job one might call critical theory or critical pedagogy.  As this blog has claimed, the predominant approach to instruction has been essentialist in nature – straight lecture and exposition of content information – also known as direct instruction or teacher-centered instruction.[3]

Given that the critical theory construct has been around since the 1930s in one form another, that bias toward direct instruction reflects quite a rejection of critical pedagogy’s ideas and claims.  Be that as it may, what this blogger experienced among his fellow teachers that came closest to critical pedagogy – in any form – was what can be labeled as issue-centered instruction or approach. 

To be clear, that approach was in no way popular but occasionally was encountered.  And one can safely say that such an approach did not engender either supportive or hostile school policy.[4]  Perhaps if it were more in use, districts would have had some policy concerning its adoption.

That level of adoption influences how effective issue-centered instruction would be and leads to the initial question this posting is asking.  That is:  does the instructional strategy a teacher utilizes, in this case issue-centered approach, motivate students to participate in class activities and dispose them to learn the content the instruction has to convey? 

            In answering this query, this blogger admits to an opinion perhaps not shared by all.  That would be that issue-centered instruction can be considered to be critical light in that it engages students in controversial topics which usually, but not exclusively, deal with oppressive or perceived oppressive conditions facing segments of the population.

          A source of information more from that period of time (1990s), the Handbook on Teaching Social Issues:  NCSS Bulletin 93,[5]  edited by Ronald Evans and David Warren Saxe, gives its readers a definition for issue-centered instructional approach.  For purposes here, a general description of that definition will do.  It is an approach that calls on students to confront controversial issues or questions – e.g., has the American experience been one of exploiting African Americans, from the institution of slavery to degrading discriminatory practices? 

The theory of this approach calls for students to deal with all available, relevant information, not just stacked information that supports either a positive response – yes, it has – or a negative response – no, it has not.  And with that information, they, the students, discuss and debate with other students what that information leads them to conclude. 

Student evaluations by teachers of such efforts are limited to the thoroughness of students’ research and the reasonableness students exhibit in conducting that research and in their efforts to draw and defend their conclusions.  In this process, teachers are to be ideologically neutral and not sway students to any given position regarding the issue under consideration.

Yes, the approach has a bias as to the questions it asks – often reflecting critical pedagogic concerns, but not necessarily so.  It definitely does not preclude what conclusions students will draw from their inquiry.  To repeat, at all points, teachers are to insist on reasonableness in discussion and debate – in what is cited and concluded – but they are not to sway the interchange in any biased direction.

Here are recent thoughts from the American Bar Association regarding this general methodology to social studies:

           

For most, it’s not often [that teachers use controversial issues as instructional content], and this is part of the reason that students remember and value the opportunity to discuss issues of controversy in a safe environment. You need to communicate to students why you are having them discuss this issue. All of them are potential voters. This country works best when its citizens are both informed and participate. This country is also pluralistic, in almost every sense of the word. We have many different ideas about what is best but only one legitimate way to deal with the inevitable conflict that arises from disagreeing, and it’s called politics. Persuading others and being open to listening are key skills in a democracy, and key skills in a discussion. Controversial issues discussions may be the best model schools can offer for how democracy should work.[6] 

 

Seen through the eyes of the ABA, one can appreciate that this is not critical theory, which readers might recall is focused on economic and social oppressive issues, whereas issue-centered approach opens up its perspective to other concerns.

That would be to all controversial topics that makes it open-ended to “popular” forces – that is, what is considered controversial at a given time.  It does not have to be derived from an ideological commitment to critical theory, federalism, natural rights, or any other construct, although given the sense of liberty that natural rights view promotes, this approach comes closest to what that construct would deem as legitimate. 

As to whether students are disposed to investigate such questions or issues, here is what Carole L. Hahn had to report back in 1996, during the time this blogger taught:

 

Nevertheless, it is clear that the three separate parts [identified just below] of that equation alone are not sufficient. Combined, however, they can make a difference in achieving the goals of social studies. That is, if students 1. study issues-centered content, 2. are in classes where discussions, research projects, debates, simulations, or writing assignments encourage them to consider differing views or interpretations of issues, and 3. they perceive the classroom climate as sufficiently supportive, so they are comfortable expressing their own view and considering those of others, then achieving social studies goals in the knowledge, skill, and attitude domains is likely.[7]

 

These conditions are echoed in the article from the ABA, cited above.  And these citations conclude that, after reviewing a number of studies, that in fact an “issued-centered” approach will entice students to actively engage in ensuing inquiries.  But it should be pointed out that any instructional model that has any currency can be and has been supported by their advocates as to its effectiveness by appropriate studies, and that includes direct instructional approaches.

Despite this reported research, one can still question whether the bulk of American students from modest to middle class backgrounds will necessarily find controversial issues engaging. In terms of this instructional strategy, as with any approach, this blogger has his doubts. He also believes that his doubt can be extended to whether the viability of either critical pedagogy or issue-centered approaches can even lure lower income groups to engage in active learning modes.

The belief that lower-income groups will be naturally attracted to a curriculum that highlights oppressive conditions that victimize them assumes rational decision-making. That assumption holds that once students see the rational basis for learning about conditions that hold them down and that they, the conditions, can be at least ameliorated by such knowledge, underestimates the emotional and cultural factors at work. 

One needs to remember that one is dealing with adolescents – be they from advantaged or disadvantaged groups.  The bias there is to rebel and not necessarily against those who one might consider to be reasonable targets.[8]  This is not to say such instruction is bound for failure, but that teachers and other educators should not underestimate the challenges entailed with whatever instructional approach is adopted.

For a highly readable account of these irrational mental states and their power to sustain these relationships, read David Brooks' book, Social Animal.[9] This blogger can report from an extensive career as a classroom teacher of secondary social studies in both lower income and middle-income schools that no instructional approach can consistently be counted on to achieve success. Success is the product of many factors. Therefore, he has his doubts as to the belief that the issue-centered approach is a guaranteed way to solicit the sought after response.

But if educators are prone to look toward issue-centered curriculum and instruction as their chosen approach, this blogger has another concern. It is one of bias even to an approach that claims to be an open forum for discussion. That is an approach that claims to be non-ideological and based only on popular concerns.  He will address this issue in his next posting.

---

[1] Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann, “Yes, Critical Race Theory Is Being Taught in Schools, City Journal (October 20, 2022), accessed May 20, 2023, https://www.city-journal.org/article/yes-critical-race-theory-is-being-taught-in-schools.

[2] Alyson Klein, “Survey:  Educators’ Political Leanings, Who They Voted For, Where They Stand on Key Issues,”  Education Week (December 12, 2017), accessed May 20, 2023, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/survey-educators-political-leanings-who-they-voted-for-where-they-stand-on-key-issues/2017/12#:~:text=Forty%20three%20percent%20of%20the,%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cvery%20liberal.%E2%80%9D.

[3] “Direct Instruction,” The Glossary of Education Reform (December 20, 2013), accessed May 21, 2023, https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/#:~:text=Generally%20speaking%2C%20direct%20instruction%20may,used%20in%20American%20public%20schools.

[4]Remember there is a difference between an instructional approach and a curriculum – the first is logistical, the latter is strategic.

[5] Cited book is a “reader” which contains a collection of solicited articles. Ronald W. Evans & David W. Saxe, eds., Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS bulletin 93 (Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies, 1996). 

[6] Louis Ganzler, “Confronting Controversial Issues in the Classroom,” ABA (August 3, 2022), accessed May 20, 2023, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/cornerstones-of-democracy/confronting-controversial-issues-in-the-classroom/.

[7] Carole L. Hahn, “Research on Issues-Centered Social Studies,” in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues: NCSS Bulletin 93, eds. Ronald W. Evans and David Warren Saxe (Washington, DC: National Council of the Social Studies, 1996), 25-41, 26.

[8] “How to Deal with a Rebellious Teen,” Newport Academy (February 14, 2022) accessed May 21, 2023, https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/restoring-families/rebellious-teen/#:~:text=Rebellion%20is%20a%20natural%20part,person%20separate%20from%20their%20parents.

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