JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XXIV

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

          This posting continues this blog’s positive review of the parochial/traditional federalist construct’s usefulness in the development of a civics curriculum.  It finishes that effort by reporting on William Schubert’s last commonplace of curriculum, that being the milieu and its element, “student culture.”[2]

Student Culture

          America, for some time now, has set the stage and “encouraged” (mostly unintentionally) a youth culture.  Here is what this blog has previously cited about this development,

 

All in all, the strategy [to institute a values education component] did not meet with much success, and it has generally, through the years, been abandoned.

What remained was an almost total abandonment of handling value issues in the classroom, at least in a thought-out fashion.  This left a vacuum that was filled by two sources.  One has been the all-pervasive media and its implied values.[3]  The other has been the young people themselves.  This latter source was often played out in the context of a youth culture becoming ever more pervasive, especially in large urban comprehensive high schools.  The result:  a highly narcissistic and self-absorbed youth population.[4]

 

This sort of observation has been around for many years.  Back in 1993, Christopher Hurn identified several changes that have affected the milieu of American schools.[5]  Starting in the 1950s, large migration patterns began in this nation.  This included large numbers of black and Latino/a populations moving into northern and midwestern schools.

          The effects of this movement included changes to ethnic integration, or at least desegregation, in many schools.  Also, the small community school began to be a thing of the past or, at least, very rare as large comprehensive schools became common.  Socially, schools became less homogeneous settings characterized by familiar and uniform cultural symbols and artifacts.  By the 1970s, the common school population was a mix of races, classes, ethnicity.  All of this, by today’s eyes, are just the way things are and should not be innately considered a negative situation.

          But has the society found effective ways to meet these newer realities – surely enough time has transpired for appropriate accommodation to these changes?  One way to judge whether schools have met the implied challenges would be to take a measure of how young people are doing.  The Pew Research Center took on this question and reported on it in 2019. 

Summarily, Pew reports, “American teens have a lot on their minds.  Substantial shares [of American teens’ mental states] point to anxiety and depression, bullying, and drug and alcohol use (and abuse) as major problems among their age, according to … survey [results] of youth ages 13 to 17.”[6]  This study goes on to describe how seven-in-ten youths state that levels of anxiety and depression are characterizing their peers. 

And this overall concern is backed by what mental health researchers and clinicians are reporting.  To put some numbers to this concern, the Pew report cites that between 2004 and 2016, the percent of students reporting “major depression episodes” rose from 9 to 12.8, and “major depression episodes with severe impairment” increased from 5.5% to 9%.  That’s nearly one of every ten teenagers in 2016. 

In addition, in terms of bullying, “About a fifth of high school students … reported being bullied on school property in the past 12 months; 14.9% said they’d experienced cyberbullying (via texts, social media or other digital means) in the previous year.”[7]  The report goes on to share information on gangs, poverty, and teen pregnancy, all proving to be areas of concern.

The takeaway is that in many ways, today’s youths in the US live a life apart from the general population and that that world in many ways places significant obstacles to a smooth and productive transition to adulthood.  However, all of this is not new but a continuance of what was probably first noticed in the 1950s.  With the advent of universal schooling, what became obvious was that the main effect was not necessarily the spread of knowledge – useful for employment and developing self-fulfilling social lives – but the rise of a social and cultural transformation.

The late sociologist James Coleman warned in the 1950s,

 

The child of high-school age is “cut off” from the rest of society, forced inward toward his own age group, made to carry out his whole social life with others his own age.  With his fellows, he comes to constitute a small society, one that has most of its important interactions within itself, and maintains only a few threads of connection with the outside adult society.[8]

 

And why did this shifting to a more “hands-off” approach to schooling come about?

          Here one has a double whammy:  one was the diversification of school populations (as mentioned above) and the general, growing natural rights perspective to social and governmental policies and behaviors.  The expectation by society, at large, was that schools, in order to meet the times, should become less authoritative, more tolerant, less unequal, and more democratic (in a natural rights sort of way).

          In short, student culture was allowed to develop at school with less adult supervision since there was no consensus as to the cultural standards that would set parameters on this new level of toleration.  “… [I]t is understandable that many teachers and school officials became confused and uncertain about their mission …”[9]

          This blogger’s personal experience – both as a student and a teacher – can attest that without a solid sense of mission or direction, too many students lost respect for their schools as these sites seemed to be devoid of moral authority.  Students, in ever larger degree, lost the sense that schools were worthwhile.

          The next posting will continue this rundown about how the post-World War II social landscape has affected American youths and their evolving youth culture.  With that completed, this blog will revert to what this blogger has to say, i.e., his critique of the parochial/traditional federalist construct before he presents the advocacy for the natural rights construct.

[Reminder:  The reader is reminded that he/she can have access to the first 100 postings of this blog, under the title, Gravitas:  The Blog Book, Volume I.  To gain access, he/she can click the following URL:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zh3nrZVGAhQDu1hB_q5Uvp8J_7rdN57-FQ6ki2zALpE/edit

 OR

click onto the “gateway” posting that allows the reader access to a set of supplemental postings to other published works by this blogger by clicking the URL: http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/ and then looking up the posting for October 23, 2021, entitled “A Digression.”]

---

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

[3] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death:  Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, (New York:  Penguin Books, 1986).

[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York, NY:  Free Press, 2009).

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

[6] Drew DeSilver, “The Concerns and Challenges of Being a U.S. Teen:  What the Data Show,” Pew Research Center (February 26, 2019), accessed June 29, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/26/the-concerns-and-challenges-of-being-a-u-s-teen-what-the-data-show/ .

[7] Ibid.

[8] As quoted in Paul Howe, “We’re All Teenagers Now,” Aeon (n.d.), accessed June 29, 2022, https://aeon.co/essays/how-us-high-school-culture-brought-teen-values-to-the-world ;

[9] Hurn, The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling, 284.

JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XXIII

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

          To date, this blog has been sharing a positive judgment of the parochial/traditional federalist construct’s utility in the development of a civics curriculum.  For that purpose, this blog has used William Schubert’s commonplaces of curriculum which are teacher, learner, subject matter, and milieu.[2]  That review is now considering “school’s socio-economic base” as an element of milieu.

School’s Socio-Economic Base

On an ongoing basis, research has indicated that there is a strong relationship between socio-economic-status (SES) and educational attainment and distribution of educational resources.  Of late, here is what the American Psychological Association had to say,

 

Research indicates that children from low-SES households and communities develop academic skills slower than children from higher SES groups. For instance, low SES in childhood is related to poor cognitive development, language, memory, socioemotional processing, and consequently poor income and health in adulthood. The school systems in low-SES communities are often underresourced, negatively affecting students’ academic progress and outcomes.[3]

 

Back in 1988, the late Jean Anyon found that the prevalent social economic class associated with a particular school influenced the type of instruction the students at that school received.[4]  According to more current research, things have not changed that much. 

          The tendency for students who attend what was identified as “working-class schools” relied on instruction based on rote memory work with little or no explanatory lessons without which, in turn, led to mechanistic learning.  This approach characterized instruction for students from lower income families across various subject areas (language arts, social studies, and math).  On the other hand, students who attend either “affluent professional schools” or “executive elite schools” are much more likely to be exposed to instruction that has them engaged in creative activities and independent work.

          This latter approach has students develop analytical skills useful in adult life.  In short, schools tend, through their hidden curriculum, to reinforce the social and economic inequalities that already exist.  Workers’ children are taught the disciplinary dispositions expected of them in the workplace and managers’ and problem-solvers’ offspring are taught skills they need to replace their parents in the management level or consulting positions.

          Success and advancement can be readily related to the skills and knowledge one would find with the more engaged approaches.  The US Department of Labor publication summarizes what is called for at the worksite of today:

 

In the workplace, there two kinds of skills:  technical skill and soft skills.  Knowing how to accomplish tasks like cooking, computer programming, or teaching, are called technical skills.  They relate to a particular occupation.  You may have learned technical skills from past work experience, school, or training.  These skills are often included in job listings to describe the tasks of a position.  Examples are:

·      Build a cabinet

·      Read an image

·      Operate equipment

·      Paint a portrait

·      Write computer code

·      Teach a lesson

·      Investigate a scientific question

·      Sell products to customers

Employers also want employees who fit in and get along well in the workplace.  That requires soft skills.  These are so valuable that soft skills are often the reason employers decide whether to keep or promote an employee.  Some soft skills can be taught in school.  But most you learn in everyday life and can improve at any time.  For example:

·      Good communication skills

·      Critical thinking

·      Working well in a team

·      Self-motivation

·      Being flexible

·      Determination and persistence

·      Being a quick learner

·      Good time management[5]

 

When comparing a perennialism-based curriculum, a la Mortimer Adler (reviewed in earlier postings), to curricula currently offered in working-class schools – along with their innate inequality – one can consider it wise to adopt Adler’s curricular proposal.  Specifically, that would be a single-track curriculum.[6]

          Adler pointed out that even workers in the transformed economy of the current economic landscape must develop analytical and problem-solving skills.  Students, to be successful in the post-industrial economy, whether they become workers on assembly lines, providers of services, or professional/managers, are more in need of skills that allow workers to analyze and make decisions from technically complex matters to making on-time deliveries.

          According to how a leading job-placement service puts it,

 

Creative problem-solving involves thinking of unconventional solutions to complex issues. Demonstrating creative problem-solving skills can make you an asset in any situation. Having a creative approach to problems is a skill that can make you an essential part of almost any workplace. Both highly technical careers in fields such as medicine and more service-oriented jobs such as administrative support need people who can creatively solve problems in order to overcome obstacles in the workplace.[7]

           

The cited service, “Indeed,” lists creative problem-solving third in its list of 14 essential skills.  These skills should be developed throughout the curriculum, and social studies is no exception.

          The last element of this commonplace, milieu, will be the topic of the next posting.  That would be “student culture.”  With that completed, this blog will revert to what this blogger has to say, i.e., his critique of the parochial/traditional federalist construct before he presents the advocacy for the natural rights construct.

---

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

[3] “Education and Socioeconomic Status,” American Psychological Association (n.d., but with references as recent as 2016), accessed June 26, 2022, https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.pdf .  Note:  apparently, in social science literature, the spelling underresource is acceptable.

[4] Jean Anyon, “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum Work,” in Curriculum:  An Introduction to the Field, 2^nd Edition, ed. James R. Gress (Berkeley, CA:  McCutchan, 1988), 366-389.  This article also appears in the following sits, https://www1.udel.edu/educ/whitson/897s05/files/hiddencurriculum.htm .

[5] This blogger cannot identify the site from which this quote was taken, but related sites are “Soft Skills to Pay the Bills,” U. S. Department of Labor (n.d.), accessed June 28, 2022, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/individuals/youth/transition/soft-skills AND “Soft Skills:  The Competitive Edge,” U. S. Department of Labor (n.d.) accessed June 28, 2022, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/publications/fact-sheets/soft-skills-the-competitive-edge .

[6] Mortimer J. Adler, The Paideia Proposal:  An Educational Manifesto (New York, NY:  Collier Books, 1982).

[7] Indeed Editorial Team, “Top 12 Job Skills Employers Look for in Job Candidates,” Indeed (May 6, 2020/June 10, 2022), accessed June 26, 2022, https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/top-job-skills .

JUDGING PAROCHIAL FEDERALISM, XXIII

 

An advocate of parochial federalism continues his/her presentation[1] …

Expectations of Schools (cont.)

The last two postings reviewed the major philosophic schools of thought in the field of education.  There are four: perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, and reconstructionism.  The reader is invited, using the archive feature, to read those postings if that has not been done.  Part of that text pointed out that parochial/traditional federalism, if used to guide civics education, would most likely be associated with perennialism and its focus on the grand traditions of Western civilization – its great ideas and great books.

          In further describing and explaining this connection, this posting will again focus on the work of Mortimer Adler and his updating of perennialism.  He calls for a signal track, i.e., the same curriculum for all students.  That single curriculum should emphasize a preparation to life in which one can go on learning.  In his Paideia curriculum, a prominent objective has to do with “the individual’s role as an enfranchised citizen of this republic.”[2]

          He writes,

 

The reason why universal suffrage in a true democracy calls for universal public schooling is that the former without the latter produces an ignorant electorate and amounts to a travesty of democratic institutions and processes.  To avoid this danger, public schooling must be universal in more than its quantitative aspect.  It must be universal also in its qualitative aspect.  Hence, … [an] objective of basic schooling – [is to have] an adequate preparation for discharging the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.[3]

 

Note the federalist bias toward duties and responsibilities.  But would a general education undermine the attempts of schools to prepare youngsters for the work-a-day world?  The argument of this perennial source is that it does not.  Adler explains,

 

As compared with narrow, specialized training for particular jobs, general schooling is of the greatest practical value.  It is good not only because it is calculated to achieve two of the three main objectives at which basic schooling should aim – preparing for citizenship and personal development and continued growth.  It is also good practically because it will provide preparation for earning a living.

          Of all the creatures on earth, human beings are the least specialized in anatomical equipment and in instinctive modes of behavior.  They are, in consequence, more flexible than other creatures in their ability to adjust to the widest variety of environments and to rapidly changing external circumstances.  They are adjustable to every clime and condition on earth and perpetually adjustable to the shock of change.

          That is why general, nonspecialized schooling has the quality that most befits human nature.  That is why, in terms of practicality and utility, it is better than any other kind of schooling.[4]

 

Therefore, the use of parochial/traditional federalism construct with its dependence on a methodology that relies on discussion of constitutional, republican ideas and ideals would not only instruct as to the duties and responsibilities the citizenry has or a general communal commitment it should have, but also would add, in a practical fashion, a preparation for all students in whatever course they choose. 

Therefore, current American curriculum should incorporate Adler’s prescriptions to be amenable to the interests of all socio-economic classes and their expectations.  And that completes this argument’s position on the expectations of schools.  The next element of this overall argument presents is a school’s socio-economic base. 

This blog will address it in the next posting and, if space allows, will also address student culture.  With those two elements, the overall argument promoting the parochial/traditional federalism will be completed and lead to this blogger’s overall critique of this construct.  That critique will be the last element of this blog’s review of this side of the dialect debate between parochial federalism and natural rights perspectives.  The blog will then address the antithesis – what would become basically the thesis – that being the natural rights view.

---

[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] Mortimer J. Adler, The Paideia Proposal:  An Educational Manifesto (New York, NY:  Collier Books, 1982).  Page not available.

[3] Ibid., 17.

[4] Ibid., 19-20.

PHILOSOPHIES OF EDUCATION (cont.)

 

To further contextualize this blog’s review of Mortimer Adler’s contribution – his application of the academic rationalist approach to curriculum development – this posting will complete its review of the four major philosophic traditions:  perennialism (academic rationalism), essentialism, progressivism, and reconstructionism (critical theory). 

What remains after the last posting’s descriptions of perennialism and essentialism are those of progressivism and reconstructionism.  And as with the last posting, this one will rely chiefly on Augsberg’s chart of educational philosophies.[1]

Progressivism.  This philosophy takes a more holistic approach and shies away from making distinctions between content and/or the teacher.  If anything, this approach zeroes in on process or instructional strategies that have students utilize experimental testing or studies.  By doing so, students are directed to actively test ideas through experiments; in short, progressivism calls for interactive education.

          As for content, it argues for students to use their experiences from their social worlds.  They are to question what they see and experience, especially as they take note of the problems that they, and the people they observe, encounter.  “Learning is rooted in the questions of learners that arise through experiencing the world. It is active, not passive. The learner is a problem solver and thinker who makes meaning through his or her individual experience in the physical and cultural context.”[2] 

And with that focus, effective teaching exposes students to active situations in which students learn by interacting and performing with what the situations demand or encourage.  So, learning becomes first-person, i.e., it results from what students do within the context of those situations.

Application of this approach has to date relied heavily on the scientific method which in turn imposes first-hand experiences in systematically organized lessons that usually test hypothetical claims or “if/then” speculations.  And the resulting learning does not rely on being told what to know, but on a process in which they take part and derive their answers to those various inquiries.  While this might sound somewhat modern, progressive education has a history stretching back to the mid-1920s. 

The leadership of John Dewey, until the mid-1950s, aimed efforts at improving the ways people lived their lives as citizens of a meaningful democracy not just as a political polity.  And that meant democratizing the nation’s institutions such as education.  “Shared decision making, planning of teachers with students, student-selected topics are all aspects [of this approach].  Books are tools, rather than authority.”[3]

Reconstructionism/Critical Theory.  The aims of this last philosophy have to do with social realities and how they relate to accomplishing a better society within a worldwide democracy.  The focus to attain those aims is to institute a curriculum that promotes social reforms.  Initially, the approach was spurred forward by the realities of World War II. 

At that time, under the leadership of Theodore Brameld, a new awareness evolved, that being a realization that humans could annihilate themselves through technology motivated by cruelty.  But there was another side to this realization in that humans could also bring about beneficial societal arrangements using those same technological capabilities.

          Another leader of this shift was George Counts.  He saw that education could be the vehicle by which society could create a new social order.  The path by which to accomplish such a lofty goal – to overcome oppressive practices – was by preparing people, beginning with young ones, to address and discover those practices and policies that set social efforts toward that just order.  For example – and citing another leader of this approach,

 

Paulo Freire (1921-1997) was a Brazilian whose experiences living in poverty led him to champion education and literacy as the vehicle for social change. In his view, humans must learn to resist oppression and not become its victims, nor oppress others. To do so requires dialog and critical consciousness, the development of awareness to overcome domination and oppression. Rather than "teaching as banking," in which the educator deposits information into students' heads, Freire saw teaching and learning as a process of inquiry in which the child must invent and reinvent the world. For social reconstructionists and critical theorists, curriculum focuses on student experience and taking social action on real problems, such as violence, hunger, international terrorism, inflation, and inequality.[4]

 

 

To seek out these varied ambitions, each dealing with those aspects of life that are controversial – especially as the approach is applied to social studies and literature – teachers are to utilize inquiry into various perspectives and concentrate on the dialogue – the language – that, first recognizes it as a language, and second, defines or realistically reflects the assumptions and contexts of that which is under study.  Where possible, the curriculum should be, according to this approach, in students’ “backyards,” their communities – i.e., implement a “first person” education.

One last point should be made.  This is not part of Augsberg’s chart, but it is the experience of this blogger that proponents of critical theory do seem to share a positive disposition toward Marxian philosophy.  For example, given the central role Paulo Freire played in promoting critical theory, one can definitely consider that influence to be well-categorized as Marxist.  Patrick O’Connor writes,

The academic consensus is that Freire advanced a radical and even Marxist educational theory and practice. Pedagogy of the Oppressed [Freire’s most noted book] is promoted as one of the founding texts of so-called “critical pedagogy.” This has been bolstered by the promotion of Freire by various pseudo-left figures internationally from the 1970s to the present day. This includes, in the US, linguist Noam Chomsky (“Freire is a radical revolutionary”) and educationalist Peter McLaren (Freire, he recently wrote in Jacobin, “continues to be a lodestar for teachers working in poverty-stricken communities across the globe, and for just about anyone who’s searching for a sense of justice in an unjust world”).[5]

 

This connection is not offered as a criticism, but hopefully as an attempt to be complete in this presentation.

In the spirit of being upfront, this blogger considers himself a progressive.  His reservation with that approach is its bias toward scientific research as a sole mode of investigation, to the exclusion of other modes such as historical approaches.  With the New Social Studies movement from the 1960s, the social studies national effort has favored inquiry as the favored instructional strategy. 

Despite this, that form of instruction has had little success in being adopted in America’s schools.  Teachers for the most part have not adopted inquiry as their go-to instructional practice.  Instead, they mostly rely on didactic methods.  On the other hand, a defender of parochial/traditional federalism would be apt to advocate perennialism.  

That school of thought and its siding with the Western civilization’s great ideas and great books fit neatly with parochial federalism’s origins and its reliance on religious and other philosophical traditions.  And with that rundown, one is better equipped to consider Mortimer Adler’s contribution to the description of the “milieu” commonplace of curriculum.

---

[1] “Educational Philosophical Definitions and Comparison Chart,” Augsburg (n.d.), accessed June 15, 2022, https://web.augsburg.edu/~erickson/edc490/downloads/comparison_edu_philo.pdf .

[2] Ibid., n.p.

[3] Ibid., n.p.

[4] Ibid., n.p.

[5] Patrick O’Connor, “Paulo Freire and the Pedagogy of the Pseudo-Left,” World Socialist Web Site, October 15, 2021, accessed June 19, 2022, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/16/frei-o16.html .