A POST COLD WAR LANDSCAPE

 

This blog is currently reviewing various problems related to how Americans interact and how, in turn, those social processes reflect the challenges posed by the natural rights perspective.  That view has become dominant among Americans in the way they see governance and politics.  The last two postings have highlighted economic activity and specifically commented on trade and comparative advantage.

          Perhaps history will designate this current time as the post-Cold War era.  To the extent this is true, looking back might be helpful.  In the years leading to the end of the twentieth century, one can detect academic and journalistic commentators who warned of what was developing then and has reached fruition now.  At that earlier time, concerns over various industries were being pointed out. 

As the last posting identified, those were industries in technological space – industries such as microelectronics, biotechnology, tele-communication, and computers plus software.  At the turn of the century, international markets had not experienced the full effect low-income nations would have on those industries.  Today, one is hard pressed to buy a new car since computer chips cannot be sufficiently obtained due to the pandemic and the resulting disruptions of many supply chains that have occurred.  The shortage of computer chips, for example, has had an inordinate effect.

Here is the way the predictions sounded back at the turn of the century:  the major competitors, including those of low wage countries, have yet to see the highest levels of labor competition which seem to be in the future.  As the former communist nations become more capitalistic, their educated work force will enter the global labor market.  “Communism ran bad economies but good school systems.”[1]  Once the former communist world learns to play the capitalist game, employers will have access to a relatively well-educated work force of 1.9 billion people. 

Lester Thurow, who points this out, further writes,

Suppose one gave a comprehensive examination to all high school graduates in America to test their educational qualifications and then gave that same examination to everyone in the old Communist world … How many of the latter world pass the exam with test scores higher than those achieved by the average American high school graduate?  The answer is essentially “infinity” – hundreds of million of people know more than the average American.[2]

In most cases, those educated or trained people excel in the technical areas that promised to be the job producing ones in what was then the future.  And that future is now and the only aspect that didn’t turn out as predicted: the leaders of that eventuality are still under communist rule, that being China and Vietnam.

          The two leading Anglo post-industrial nations, the US and Great Britain, have opted for the individualistic perspective – the natural rights view – in the way they define their competitive institutions.  This perspective has led to strategies that have been shortsighted and geared to maximizing profits.  It has also led to making money the new-fashioned way:  securities trading, leverage buyouts, and stock options.

          An economy so directed is neither creating new wealth to its potential nor increasing productivity.  Early, Germany and Japan adopted more of a communitarian perspective (at that time, Seymour Martin Lipset provided ample statistical evidence for this comparative assertion, particularly in the case of Japan[3]).  What about today?  One way to see how this approach has advanced through the years is to observe how the two nations interact economically today.

          In 2012 the Bertelsmann Foundation conducted a survey of the German population and asked how the people viewed Japan.  They were overwhelmingly positive.  They expressed seeing Japan less as a competitor and more as a partner.  The Japanese reciprocated with their overall positive view of Germany.  The poll, for example, found 97% of the Japanese had a positive view as opposed to 3% who had a negative view.[4]

          Early on, Japan’s government took a much stronger role in coordinating its economic efforts.  Corporations through cross stock ownership arrangements known as Keirstsus[5] in the industrial sector, own 78% of stocks within industrial groups on the Tokyo stock exchange.  These arrangements transcend individual businesses and industries, and, in turn, they advance high efficiencies. 

Today, Japan is the fourth largest economy of the world and Germany ranks third.  These comparisons are tricky.  For example, one can look at wealth per capita – as expressed on the average (the mean) or median – and perhaps get a better sense of which countries and their related approaches do a better job.  But any review seems to bolster the sense that communitarian views fare better in providing more equal but prosperous results.

As for the Keirstsu example, these arrangements have established strong systemic conditions that encourage coordination and lend themselves to a communitarian perspective of shared goals and values.  This should not be an indictment of capitalism, but a “gut-check” to unbridled capitalism as exemplified by policies generally denoted as neoliberal policies which became dominant in the US since the 1980s.[6]

These more communitarian approaches are strong organized conditions that encourage coordination and lend themselves to shared goals and values.  Under a communitarian perspective, the goal is not profit maximization, but market share maximization.[7]  They can be sustained only by populations that share a federated view of their citizenry, i.e., a general sense that that people share a national partnership.

And this leads one’s analysis of the economic landscape to another important factor, the prominence of monolithic corporations.  First, the stage needs to be set.  These entities have acted as the great arbitrators in the economy since their rise in the late 1800s.  They have determined products, wages, and prices.  They maintained a balance which did a good job of keeping the consumer demands of the US reasonably satisfied.

Due to the emerging competition from abroad and the easy access to labor markets, financial resources, transportation facilities, and distribution systems available to any smaller competitors, the pristine perch of the huge corporations no longer exists in many industries.  Perhaps the exception is the social media industry.  Many monoliths have experienced serious downsizing.  According to Robert Reich,[8] in the 1990s, every competitor turned to being leaner if not meaner.  This blog will pick up this turn in the next posting.

---

[1] Lester C. Thurow, The Future of Capitalism:  How Today’s Economic Forces Shape Tomorrow’s World (New York, NY:  William Morrow and Company, Inc.), 45.

[2] Ibid., 46.

[3] Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism:  A Double Edged-Sword (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1996).

[4] “Finanzachrichten – Borse and Wirtschaft aktuell,” www.wallstreet-online.de. , attempted to access November 11, 2021.  This is a difficult site to access.

[5] Keirstsu means a business network in Japan that is made up of various companies and organized by supply chains.  The sense is that members are partners, distributors, and at times financiers.  These relations are bolstered by cross ownerships of stock though individual members sustain their independence in their operations.  They, collectively, have been described as “headless combines.”  This blogger thinks they exemplify federated arrangements.  See Daniel Liberto, “Keirstsu,” Investopedia (2021), accessed November 11, 2021. 

[6] William K. Tabb, The Restructuring of Capitalism in Our Time (New York, NY:  Columbia University Press, 2012).

[7] Lester C. Thurow, Head to Head:  The Coming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992).

[8] Robert B. Reich, The Work of Nations:  Preparing Ourselves for the 21^st -Century Capitalism (New York, NY:  Vintage Books) AND “Is Lean Manufacturing Still Relevant in 2021and Beyond?”, Four Principles (n.d.), accessed November 11, 2021, https://fourprinciples.com/expert-opinion/is-lean-manufacturing-still-relevant-in-2021-and-beyond/ .

THE COMPETITIVE CHALLENGE

 

The last posting touched upon the stated woes facing many American workers.  The nation’s labor force has experienced many transforming changes since World War II from the rise of foreign trade, automation, and an adoption, domestically, of a natural rights view about what ought to prevail in terms of rights and responsibilities.  This last element affects the social-cultural expectations that Americans hold as they determine how to conduct their social affairs including labor relations.

A review of those changes is useful.  The global framework has drastically changed for the US.  The post-World War II condition was extremely generous to this country.  That war created a level of US superiority in the world never before enjoyed by any other nation in history.  Historically, this was due to the technological advancements caused by the war, the vast destruction suffered by all other industrial countries (except for Canada), and the almost total lack of destruction in the US.

          Consequently, the United States created the rules and conditions of international trade that prevailed in the 1945-1975 period.  The US kept the high technological industries for itself and allowed the rest of the world to fill in the low technological niches.  This distribution was to the benefit of all nations.  The exception to this economic balance was the military expenditures (a public consumption element) of the US (a product of defending against the threat of the Soviet Union) and the unwillingness of Americans to cut private consumption to pay for it.

          This excess, over the years, ate into the investment levels within the US economy and, in turn, the productivity levels of the nation.  The inability of the US to keep up its relative advantage in productivity (even though the US still has the highest productivity levels of the world) and the increasing productivity of such nations as Germany and China, have caused a new competitive world in which vying for the high value market segments in various industries has stiff competitive global markets.

They include specifically seven key industries:  microelectronics, biotechnology, and new materials industries, civilian aviation, tele-communication, robots plus machine tools, and computers plus software (e.g., the production of computer chips).  One report states,

 

The political climates in the United States and Europe show that there are different viewpoints on the results of globalization.  Many countries around the globe are tightening their immigration rules, and it is harder for immigrants to find jobs in new countries.  This rise in nationalism is mainly due to the anger from the perception that foreigners fill domestic jobs [either in their own nations or in the US or Europe] or at companies moving their operations abroad to save money on labor costs.[1]

 

Unlike the period in the post-World War II years, this is a win-lose competition in which an advantage for one country will be a disadvantage to other major competitors.[2]

          Each major competitor comes into the competition with advantages and disadvantages.  In summary, Asian countries (China, Vietnam, and Japan) have the advantage of culturally supporting a productive, as opposed to a consumer, mentality (a factor in those countries that has become more Western since the turn of the century), and a relatively disciplined economic strategy, and Europe has created the largest trading block, giving it the opportunities to highly influence trading rules in the 21^st century.

          The main disadvantages are, for Asian countries, a relative intolerance of foreigners.  That hampers those nations from integrating fully their off-shore economic activities (although China has been very active in various parts of the world).  Germany and other European countries find it difficult to incorporate fully Eastern European nations, control migration patterns (which include influxes from Africa), and its long-standing cultural diversity inhibiting full political unity (of note the departure of Great Britain from the European Common Market).

            As for the US, it still leads the world in all of the economic absolute measures – although one can foresee China eventually taking over that position except for income per capita.  But its weakness is that it has lost ground on many measures and that past successes have made it difficult for its populace to understand the underlying dangers. 

Here lies the area in which American educational practices contribute to a host of challenges the American economy faces in terms of global competition.  As this posting is being written, the US Congress passed an infrastructure law that promises to address many of the elements in which the US has been delinquent in keeping up with its competitors.

          Take for example the trend of real wages (wages that account for inflation).  The Congressional Research Service reports:

Real wages rose at the top of the distribution, whereas wages rose at lower rates or fell at the middle and bottom. Real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the 90th percentile increased over 1979 to 2019 for the workforce as a whole and across sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. However, at the 90th percentile, wage growth was much higher for White workers and lower for Black and Hispanic workers. By contrast, middle (50th percentile) and bottom (10th percentile) wages grew to a lesser degree (e.g., women) or declined in real terms (e.g., men).[3]

In short, unless one finds him/herself in the top wage bracket, he/she is more likely to find one’s economic standing more challenging in relative terms.

          Here, the concept of comparative advantage becomes central in many of the calculations affecting international trade.  Comparative advantage relates to how a nation or business can produce goods not in absolute terms – in the cheapest way – but how they can produce goods cheaply relative to the costs to competitors.  In that, those foreign entities have high levels of such advantage.

          Here is how one source describes the importance of comparative advantage:

Comparative advantage has influenced the way economies work from the time that countries first started trading with each other many centuries ago.  Globalization has brought the world together by encouraging more trade among nations, more open financial institutions and a greater flow of investment capital across international borders.  In a globalized economy, countries and businesses are connected in more ways than ever before … Together, these developments improve economic output and opportunities for both developed and developing nations. These factors also cause greater specialization based on comparative advantage …

[C]ountries such as China have seen exponential growth in their manufacturing sectors in recent decades. Countries with the lowest labor costs have a comparative advantage in basic manufacturing. Globalization has benefited developing countries by providing jobs and capital investments that would not have otherwise been available. As a result, some developing countries have been able to progress more quickly in terms of job growth, educational attainment, and infrastructure improvements.[4]

And this sort of backdrop encourages one to be concerned over America’s ability to compete to its fullest capacity in this continuously changing landscape.  Some of these factors have been of concern since the last century, but while some advances have occurred, these factors are still of importance today.  The next posting will continue this review.

---

[1] “Globalization Benefits and Challenges,” Velocity Global (October 6, 2021), access November 4, 2021, https://velocityglobal.com/blog/globalization-benefits-and-challenges-gs/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=contact-us&gclid=CjwKCAjwiY6MBhBqEiwARFSCPsSW8zJsRwiKECTu7rZGxsfLc0RqJz-1pXLpcgQ3_zdMik1RoGFamxoCcmEQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds .

[2] Today this is pretty much treated as a given in the literature.  For accounts of the transition from a US dominant world economy to a more competitive one, the relevant literature can be found in the 1990s.  For example, Lester C. Thurow, Head to Head:  The Coming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1992).  Of course, one can now add China to that list of competitors.

[3] “Real Wage Trends, 1979-2019” (updated 12/28/2020), Congressional Research (no date), https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45090.pdf .

[4] The Investopedia, “How Does Globalization Impact Comparative Advantage?,” Investopedia (January 18, 2021), accessed November 8, 2021, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030215/how-does-globalization-impact-comparative-advantage.asp .

LEADING TO A GLOBAL ARENA

 

In the last posting, this blog outlined some cultural conditions that bode ill for the general health of the US polity and of the nation.  Part of that landscape includes less than optimal conditions in the nation’s schools and those institutional structures that support and give authority to those schools.  That posting claims that in terms of the civic responsibilities of schools, they are not measuring up.

          The noted criticism of American schools has taken many forms, but generally a good deal of literature that generally comments on social maladies has been critical of the lack of educational success.  All the way back to the 1990s, Christopher Hurn puts the source of this criticism into some perspective.

The best known evidence for the claim that high school achievement has declined is the trend of Scholastic Aptitude Test scores.  In the early 1960s those tests were taken by only a very small proportion of high school students, primarily those who were planning to attend highly selective colleges and universities.  As the proportion of students taking these tests has increased, one would expect some decline as the average ability of students taking the test moves closer to the average ability of all high school students.[1]

Hurn goes on to point out that in the twenty or so years before his report, the number of students taking this test has remained basically the same.  That indicates that declines in student performance are difficult to explain.

          He notes that those scores moved unmistakably downward until 1980 and were steady after that year and that these scores are consistent with other testing.  More recently, 2015 saw the lowest scores in some time.[2]  The current state of SAT scores is somewhat mired in issues – such as the use of “adversity scores,” which attempts to take into account socio/economic conditions deemed as negatively affecting student performance.  In addition, the effects surrounding the pandemic have also made interpreting more current scores more difficult.

Overall, though, no one is touting more recent performance in students around the country.  In 2017, a Pew Report judged US schools as woefully below what many believe they should be.  Here are their overall findings,

How do U.S. students compare with their peers around the world? Recently released data from international math and science assessments indicate that U.S. students continue to rank around the middle of the pack and behind students in many other advanced industrial nations.

One of the biggest cross-national tests is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which every three years measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries.  The recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38^th out of 71 countries in math and 24^th in science.  Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30^th in math and 19^th in science.

Younger American students fare somewhat better on a similar cross-national assessment, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study.  That study, known as TIMSS, has tested students in grades four and eight every four years since 1995.  In the most recent tests, from 2015, 10 countries (out of 48 total) had statistically higher average fourth-grade math scores than the U.S., while 7 countries had higher average science scores.  In the eighth-grade tests, 7 out of 37 countries had statistically higher average math scores than the U.S., and 7 had higher science scores.[3]

 

In short, things, as judged by this blogger, have not improved in the years since the turn of the current century.

          The perception is that schools are not accomplishing their basic function.  Complaints from government, business, and other sectors of society abound.  That environment becomes fertile ground for any uprising in sentiments that might even take bizarre turns as one sees with the gubernatorial campaign in Virginia where critical race theory took center stage.  This has led to a variety of suggestions as to what schools should do.

          Reformers have suggested changes that are usually geared toward curriculum; some suggestions have been adopted, but little has changed in terms of the problems cited.  Among the reports, though, there has been a contradiction of findings as studies are conducted to measure whether such “reforms” as school choice improve educational result, as the sample of the above studies indicates.  And as this recent political season has vividly demonstrated, the politicization of school issues does little to achieve improvements or show the way to a better day.

          It is not the purpose of this blog to settle these debates.  Here, it is sufficient to point out the perceived problem and to speculate that the problem might not lie in whether or not American schools are doing better or worse than schools prior to 1960, but that perhaps schools are not doing a good enough job given the demands of the fast moving – some say, constantly transforming – economy.  To date, those changes that have taken place in the economy have resulted in significant numbers of fellow Americans being displaced in their jobs.[4]

          That is, current indicators point to a continuous situation of competitive realities that threaten the future economic well-being of this nation.  This is unfortunate because the nation has already experienced lowering real wages among the working classes of the nation’s labor pool.  To date, Americans in too high numbers in the general population have not fully appreciated how victimized those segments have been by global forces.

          This blog will pick up this review in the next posting.  The reader, it is hoped, will keep the aim of this review in mind.  That is, given the national shifts and their consequences – such as less concern for inherently local issues including education – one sees an inherent devaluation of federalist ideals.  The next posting will continue describing this deficiency in education and how it affects other concerns, for example, the economy and the availability of employment for American workers.

---

[1] Christopher J. Hurn, The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling:  An Introduction to the Sociology of Education (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, 1993).

[2] Nick Anderson, “SAT Scores at Lowest Level in 10 Years, Fueling Worries about High Schools,” The Washington Post (September 3, 2015).

[3] Drew Desilver, “U.S. Students’ Academic Achievement Still Lags That of Their Peers in Many Other Countries,” Pew Report Center (February 15, 2017), accessed November 4, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/ .

[4] This blogger, in his published book, Toward a Federated Nation, dedicates a chapter to the prevailing problem of displaced segments of the labor pool as jobs have been exported to low income labor nations, such as China and Vietnam.  See Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL:  Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020, available through Amazon).

UNCHECKED TRENDS

 

A few postings ago, this blog announced that it would issue, online, a “book” that makes available the first one hundred postings of this blog.  Its title is Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume I.  To access it, the reader is guided to use the archive feature of this blog and look up the posting entitled “Starting It Off” which was the entry dated September 24, 2021.  That posting shared this blog book’s “Introduction” as a teaser.

These one hundred postings are no longer listed in this blog’s archive.  They, for this newer presentation, have been reedited and introduce the reader to the aims of this blog and a rationale for why it was started.  This might be helpful to readers who have recently become aware of this blog or for long time readers who might find it useful to become reacquainted with what this blog sets out to do.

          If the reader wishes access to the “book,” he/she can use the following URL to do so; that is, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zh3nrZVGAhQDu1hB_q5Uvp8J_7rdN57-FQ6ki2zALpE/edit or gain access through the gateway posting, “A Digression,” that can be accessed through the URL, http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/ and then look up the posting for October 23, 2021.  There, one finds not only a link to this blog book but other works by this blogger supplementing the books he has published.

          And while considering past efforts, this blogger has been motivated to look at some of his long-ago writings.  Of interest, from 1998, is the following:

 

In the last forty years [now sixty years], according to some noted writers, there has been a growing awareness that America’s stock in community and social trust has been waning.  Civility, or a civil society, as measured by sociological factors and reported in the popular press, [has] particularly affected the younger population of the nation.  The growing awareness and interest in a civil society [have] had a rippling effect on the welfare of the nation and of the young people in question.[1] 

 

He then ties this sentiment to the goals of or the reasons for civics education and, therefore, signifies those social studies professionals, with their commitment to citizenship education as a primary goal.  They cannot ignore the deteriorating effects these social trends represent.

And what has happened since these concerns were shared?  The political landscape has become extremely polarized, and as this blog and just about every interested venue have reported, incivility and other forms of antagonistic social behavior have seen a constant uptick of activity.  One finds parents verbally abusing school board members, people who have expressed political opinions being threatened with physical violence, and this past weekend, NBC News reported increased levels of violence in the nation’s schools.[2] 

Yes, crime rates among young people did experience a drop from 2000 to 2012, but there has been an uptrend in more recent years, and one should remember that at the turn of the century (into the 21^st century), those numbers were peaking as compared to historical trends. 

The U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) reports, “The juvenile murder rate reached its lowest level in 2012, 84% below the 1993 peak; since 2012, the rate increased 27% through 2018 (from 2.2 to 2.7 per 100,000 youth), then declined 6% (to 2.6) by 2019.”[3]  As one can judge, crime among the young still reflects a serious civil problem in this nation.  A telling report can be found in the OJJDP site, “Age-Specific Arrest Rate Trends.”[4]  There, youth crime rates as opposed to other age brackets are highlighted and reveal how augmented the rates of crime are among the younger age groups.

Back in 1998, youth crime was getting a lot of concern.  This blogger back then stated various statistics that reflected the reason for this concern; for example, “Juvenile (10- to 17-year-olds) arrests rose from just over 300 per 100,000 in 1986 to about 500 per 100,000 in 1994 …”  All of this concern found its expression in making school sites out to be hostile places.  Today, this hostility is taking other avenues. 

Now, this blogger while writing this posting can see on television parents bringing very animated complaints – even threatening violence – over such issues as “critical race theory,” “masking” policies, and vaccination requirements.  School board meetings have drawn the attention of national media.  Throughout all of this, what one does not sense is a communal atmosphere. 

What one does find is a consumer-oriented populace that is going to those meetings not to find a mutual resolution to the problems they face, but to express a tone of disgruntled customers about this public service.  Human endeavors, especially if they are taken on in the public stage – or even in the public arena – cannot be successful without taking into account the need for communal approaches.  While this can be measured in matters of degree, the current social levels of community one generally sees are historically low.  This could be one’s observation back in 1998 as well as today.

Here is what a recent Pew Report[5] claims:

·      All types of communities face both common problems and those characteristics of the various types one finds in America (that being urban, suburban, and rural types)

·      Local problems include those associated with race, socio-economic status, and demographic factors (not so much geography)

·      Both in urban and rural communities, drug addiction as an observed problem is ranked highly (judged so at a rate of 50% and 46% respectively)

·      In all three types, people cite concern over affordable housing, levels of poverty, rates of crime, and especially among urban dwellers, the quality of public-school education – concern about these areas are cited by residents from a 30% range to a 50% range

Of course, there are those areas of concern significantly felt by one type of community as opposed to the other types.  For example,

 

Some problems stand out as being particularly acute in rural areas. Rural residents are significantly more likely than those living in urban or suburban areas to say the availability of jobs: 42% of rural residents say this is a major problem in their community, compared with 34% of urban and 22% of suburban residents. Rural residents are also significantly more likely to say access to public transportation is a major problem where they live.[6]

 

Of late, communities are facing two very daunting challenges, that of social media and, of course, the covid pandemic.  They have heightened the effects of a social/political cultural influence favoring the natural rights view.

          That view, as this blog has argued repeatedly, acts to undermine a community by holding many of the supportive beliefs and dispositions – communal, collaborative, and willingness to compromise – as illegitimate or naive in too many settings.  This anti-community bias undermines this nation’s federal foundation.  In practical terms, it is adding gas to the polarization fire.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, The Usefulness and Appropriateness of a Federalist Perspective as a Theoretical Construct for the Study of Government and Civics at the Secondary Level (Tallahassee, FL:  The Florida State University (a dissertation):  1998), 1.

[2] “Kids under Pressure,” NBC Nightly News, October 31, 2021.

[3] “Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends,” OJJDP (n.d.), accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201 .

[4] “Age-Specific Arrest Rate Trends,” OJJDP (n.d.), accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05301.asp .  By way of comparison, take into account this  excerpt from a 1974 source.  It states:

The rate of delinquency cases (the number of cases per 1,000 child population) ages 10-17 was an estimated 37.5 in 1974 compared to 34.2 in 1973. From 1973 to 1974, the increase in the delinquency rate was approximately 9 percent as compared to an increase of 1.8 percent from 1972 to 1973. Between 1960 and 1974, the rate increased from 20.1 to 37.5 per 1,000, representing an 86 percent increase in 14 years.

See Jacqueline Corbett and Thomas S. Vereb, “Juvenile Court Statistics, 1974,” (n.d.) accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/148122NCJRS.pdf .  Of note is that statistics are based on a per 1,000 rate as opposed to a per 100,000 rate. 

[5] Kim Parker, Julian Menasce Horowitz, Anna Brown, Richard Fry, D’Vera Cohn, and Ruth Igielnik, “4. Views of Problems Facing Urban, Suburban and Rural Communities,” Pew Research Center (May 22, 2018), accessed November 1, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/views-of-problems-facing-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ .

[6] Ibid.

AND THE MATERIALS

 

[Note:  This posting is a continuation of a series of postings that addresses what a civics teacher preparation program should include.  If not read, the reader is encouraged to check out the previous postings in this series that began with the posting on September 28, 2021, entitled “Prime Reason.”]

And then there is one: the last of five elements of a viable teacher preparation program especially for civics teachers in public schools.  That element is:

 

Element Five:  A program that identifies civics classroom materials and curricular approaches that address and enhance the other four elements of a viable teacher preparation program.

 

This will not take too many more comments since, in essence, this last element simply aims to put in place what the other elements advance.  And a viable way to describe what is being called for is to review what the blogger attempted to do in his FSU days in his teacher preparation, inquiry course.

          His students in that course were expected to make presentations on three reputable inquiry models.  At that time, the three were the Engle and Ochoa model, the jurisprudential model, and the Massialas and Cox model.  Today, the list would be different; for example, this blogger presents a model in his book, Toward a Federated Nation.  In addition to those prior models, the students were also presented with the “We the People …” materials from the Center for Civic Education.

          In all of these, students were/are asked to discuss the models and materials in relation to the other elements previously described.  As the development of the course continues, the instructor should add other published materials for the students to analyze.  This blogger is currently writing a book that looks closely at the two major textbooks high schools currently employ:  Magruder’s American Government[1] and Glencoe United States Government:  Democracy in Action.[2]

          By way of a teaser, that review makes the following claims:

 

·      The books offer its mostly descriptive content to students in extremely objectified language.  In line with scientific efforts, that language avoids any value or attitudinal positions regarding its content.

·      The chosen information, though, reflects what is currently debatable or controversial in American society.  Given the language used in these books, that reportage does not explicitly state this editorial bias, but given what is included, one cannot find all of those choices as coincidental.  In short, the effort of these books is to inform future voters about what the writers of those texts believe will be the issues that students will confront as adults.

·      While many of the chosen issues can be analyzed and debated in terms of how they relate to justice or how they advance or detract from a civil society, the books tend to avoid questioning along those concerns.  Yes, there are exceptions, but they are passing on bits of information or inquiries without much focus placed on them.[3]

·      By providing information that informs future voters about what will possibly affect their “consumer” interests, the texts naturally portray an individualistic approach to this study of politics.  Of course, as with any reportage of politics, one must mention collective or communal arrangements at some point.  But the reflected aims do not center on what advances or hurts the common advantages of those arrangements, either in how highlighted issues are relevant to common causes or how citizens have entailed obligations regarding those issues. 

·      And finally, and this is the qualification alluded to earlier in the book, Glencoe differs from Magruder to the extent that the former attempts to adopt the methodology of behavioral political science.[4]  Glencoe, with its inclusion of raw data and inquiry questioning, reasonably mimics what political scientists do – but is gauged to the sophistication of its audience, that being high school students.  But in no way do the textbooks pick up the challenge that Daniel Elazar’s aims[5] represent.  The books are mostly silent on issues of justice or civility.

 

Overall, therefore, these books, if used – and the likelihood is very high that they will be used – need to be extensively supplemented in order to meet what the elements highlight.  A viable preparation course addresses the main obstacles to accomplishing meaningful civics education in the nation’s schools.  It warns prospective teachers that their social studies classroom is not an isolated reality.

          It encourages them to boldly address what might be for their students unpopular ideas or issues.  In addition, the presentation provides a tool to analyze curricular packages and materials.  By juxtaposing the two continuums presented earlier in this series – egocentric to universal and scientific/technical to holistic – one can mentally gauge the various material products one encounters.

          The mental presentation identifies some very basic concerns.  They indicate that in order to be successful in one’s classroom and revitalize a commitment to viable civics education, one must address some very fundamental attributes of the nation’s collective and individual existence.  The extent of what one finds currently in the nation’s political landscape – its problems and issues – unfortunately has seeped into issues of legitimacy both in the eyes of parents and the nation’s student population.

          So, to finish this series, here are the five elements:

 

Element One:  A viable teacher preparation program needs to make clear that civic preparation is not only a foundation of civics education or even social studies, but also of all public education and of responsible private educational programs as well.

Element Two:  A preparation program identifies both the challenge presented by the commodification of education and the popular culture that supports such commodification by describing it, explaining it, and evaluating it.

Element Three:  A program that imparts the teaching skills that allow those perspective teachers to conduct curriculum strategies that instruct children and adolescents in the civic knowledge and skills suitable to their developmental level and to the civic challenges of their community, state, and nation.

Element Four:  A program that couches, primarily through civics education but radiating throughout a utilized curriculum, an instructional approach in moral terms.  And …

Element Five:  A program that identifies civics classroom materials and curricular approaches that address and enhance the other four elements of a viable teacher preparation program.

 

Enough said.

---

[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] For example, in Glencoe’s coverage of economic politics, an editorial cartoon appears in which three fish of various sizes are depicted.  The smallest fish states, “There is no justice in the world,” as it is about to be eaten by the midsized fish.  The midsized fish says, “There is some justice in the world,” as it is about to be eaten by the large fish.  And, of course, the large fish says, “The world is just.”  This example is in the textbook, in the opinion of this blogger, more for its humor than its concern for justice.  See Remy, Glencoe United States Government, 718.

[4] This account dedicates a bit of space (see appendix chapter) to reviewing what constitutes behavioral studies, especially in political science. 

[5] Elazar’s aims for political science are pursuing justice, discovery of factors affecting political behavior, and promoting civil society.