INITIAL PRACTICAL ABILITIES

 

The proper role of education in the US, including that of public schools, is to prepare young ones to be functioning adults in a democracy.[1]  More specifically, in order to fulfill the democratic requisite to provide equal opportunity, an individual has a right to a public education and the preparation that education provides.

          A secondary responsibility of the educational system is directed at society:  that is to develop citizens who are responsible in their duties as prescribed by law and to some extent by customs.  And to do this, certain goals need to be identified and achieved.  That is, in order to be functional and responsible, adults should:

 

·       know certain knowledge (for example, how local government functions within the nation’s federal system),

·       be able to reflectively process certain information (for example, figure out how local government agents rank in power allocations),

·       be able to form conclusions and evaluations (for example, judge how effective the acts of various agents are in relation to citizen’s desires or needs) and,

·       at least, be willing to engage in rational thought and discussion among themselves and with others (for example, in discussion, treat opposing arguments reasonably and objectively).

 

But as with most social concerns, when addressing these fundamental requirements, one deals with certain complexities.

          For example, the educational school system must avoid indoctrinating value positions even if one is addressing basic functions.  But this is not as straight forward as it might seem initially.  Just promoting the notion that students make up their own minds over social issues, assuming choices are within legal limits, is a fine notion but oversimplified.

Why?  Because that view, if held in an uncompromising way, promotes a holistic view about how one sees the way societies should be governed and what economic system they should sustain.  That would be a liberal – as in classical liberalism – capitalist nation and with that, it entails a lot of policy biases – e.g., biases against welfare-based policy choices.  In short, no approach to civics education is totally value free and commits some level of indoctrination.

So, to be functional or responsible about content choices does not prohibit the acceptance of a list of preordained values no matter how pro or anti-individual rights they may sound.  The only exception is the value of being rational on which modern life is dependent.  All this is pointed out to further couch the suggestion that the last posting proposed, i.e., the adoption of a consumer government approach to secondary civics and American government courses. 

This change would have as its aim to shift attention from the structure of government and a national focus – where current civics instruction lies – to how individuals’ roles and duties can and should function in more local environments.  This is seen as a midway step to adopting a civics curriculum based on a liberated federalism construct.[2]  While this suggested approach can be described as eclectic, this blog will emphasize its progressive qualities. 

Mostly, its progressive quality would be reflected in how the suggested approach addresses student interests, but this is geared toward having students seeking satisfaction in their communities, towns, and cities.  This would naturally lead toward interacting with local fellow citizens, their neighbors, in dealing with governmental issues and problems.

On a practical basis, this more local emphasis shifts most students’ attention from book information to community information.  A shift in concern is also anticipated from a third-person perspective to a first-person perspective as more attention to local and personnel conditions is more likely to be achieved.  Assuming the reader agrees that these changes are preferable, this blog will continue presenting this proposal in its next post.

---

[1] For example, see Brett Grell, “Public Education:  Definition, Purpose, & Importance, Study.com, November 21, 2023, accessed March 20, 2024, URL:  https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-the-purpose-of-public-education.html#:~:text=The%20original%20purpose%20of%20public,These%20goals%20continue%20today.

[2] This blog has dedicated a good deal of text to describing and explaining this view of governance and politics.  For the purposes of this posting, the reader should understand that the view promotes a partnership sense of citizenship in which all citizens are in it together to advance the betterment of the commonwealth.  At the same time, it provides a strong defense of individual rights but not as a radical element, i.e., it recognizes that individuals have duties and responsibilities toward the nation.

A PRACTICAL TURN

 

To date, this blog has promoted the adoption of a civics curriculum based on the construct, federation theory.  That theory calls for citizens to take on a sense or understanding that they are federated to each other – a partnership.  That entails respect for each other’s rights but also the expectation that each has duties and obligations in assuring that the good health of the partnership is advanced. 

This blog has argued that this sense was dominant from the beginning of the nation to the years after World War II.  Since then, another construct has become dominant, that being the natural rights view that promotes a more individualist view.  And central to that mindset seems to be monetary advancement.  As Barbara McQuade points out:  “… American lust for wealth has led us to a national culture … that is more about extracting profits than about bettering humankind or the planet.”[1]

          To return to that earlier federalist mindset, albeit under a different version (from a parochial/traditional form to a liberated federalism form) some serious transformation would have to take place – some might consider it impossible.  Even this blogger wrote a book concerning the obstacles facing such a move.[2]  This post addresses a more reserved midway step that could be helpful in accomplishing such an extensive change. 

And that would be the introduction of a more consumer-based view of civics instruction. In other words, using a practical view might be an initial step to a more profound theoretical turn, one that eventually would be more communal in its orientation.  Paradoxical to a point, but usually, consumerist thinking tends to be more local in nature and interactive in behavior.

          Existing curricular content on the study of government does not adequately address the practical nature of the relationship between individual citizens and government.  Most government courses are primarily concerned with having students recall the structure of government:  federal, state, local (with little attention to the last two on this list).  Usually, the problems discussed and studied are:

 

a)     Structural problems, such as, should presidential primaries be conducted on the same day? Or

b)    Problems involving the democratization of American society or laws.  An example would be:  should the state support religious instruction in public schools?

 

Missing are concerns involving the practical day-to-day governmental services.   

Because government is the sole source of legitimate coercive force, any interaction with it can range from the mundane to situations with very tragic consequences.  For all students, but particularly those who will take on a trade job in the future – and likely no college experience – a lack of well–rounded social science instruction with its sobering content on the realities of power can be seriously detrimental. 

          In general, civics education has been judged deficient.  The NEA found only 25 percent of students taking part in a NAEP Assessment,[3] were “proficient,” and most of them are from wealthy families, more likely to receive that higher level instruction in college.  To further verify this need, some years ago the following question was asked of a group of twelfth grade American government teachers:

 

Does the regular American course you teach adequately instruct your non-college bound about his/her normal, expected involvements with government offices agencies (federal, state, local)?  Answer yes or no and comment please.

 

The overwhelming response was “No.” 

To quote one teacher, “The County Curriculum and books are available and geared to the ‘average’ student, with emphasis on the structure of government.”  This sort of questioning of teachers and students should be regularly included to see how “practical” civics instruction is perceived by both teachers and students.

This blogger, in his teaching days, was given guidance from the district office about goals for civics courses.  At the introductory level, these goals included understanding the structure and function of government, understanding the processes by which power is exercised, and understanding the relationship between majority rule and individual rights.  Reference to solving individual governmental problems seems to be missing.

This blog has a bit more to share given this topic and will dedicate a number of upcoming postings to doing so.

---

[1] Barbara McQuade, Attack from Within:  How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America (New York, NY:  Seven Stories Press, 2024), 170.

[2] Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to Polarized Politics:  Obstacles in Achieving a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas Civics Books, 2022).  Available through Amazon and other booksellers.

[3] Amanda Litvinov, “Forgotten Purpose:  Civics Education in Public Schools,” NEA Today, March 16, 2017, accessed March 16, 2024, https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/forgotten-purpose-civics-education-public-schools.