The
following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past
postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that
have been deleted. After each title and date, the entries below
include the first paragraph of each respective posting. If you
care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via
email to gravitascivics@gmail.com . One posting per request.
CRITICALLY,
WHAT IS THERE TO LIKE?
(June
17, 2011)
After
sharing with you what I believe critical theory to be, it's time for
me to give the theory a critique. Let me get what I like about
critical theory out of the way. I like that critical pedagogues
place an emphasis on the disadvantaged. I also like that they
dethrone the centrality of individualism. And I love how critical
theory questions a bedrock assumption of the natural rights view:
the assumed rationality of people. In this first posting dedicated
to critiquing the critical education construct, I will explain each
of these positive aspects.
A
LEAKY MODEL
(June
20, 2011)
While
the last posting lauded some of the contributions of critical
pedagogy, there are some very serious problems with that construct.
But before I begin the more serious presentation of my concerns, I
would like to relate a short anecdote which I believe gets at the
very heart of what is wanting with Marxian based models.
LEVEL
OF OPPRESSION QUESTIONED
(June
24, 2011)
While
basic Marxian beliefs, as they have been implemented in socialist
experiments, are seen to be flat out wrong when it comes to elemental
aspects of human nature, one can still garner from critical theorists
and pedagogues insights on the oppressive conditions from which the
disadvantaged suffer. This is no small contribution. But in terms
of providing a guiding view of how schools should practically go
about educating our youth, this construct, I'm afraid is a non
starter.
EVIDENCE?
(June
27, 2011)
In
the last posting of this blog, I left you with a question: Do
critical instructional strategies sufficiently motivate students to
participate in activities and other instructional requisites? I will
admit that there exists a certain difficulty in answering that
question since the whole approach is difficult to find in the US. In
my personal career I never ran across it. I worked in two different
school districts in Florida, in five different schools, with a
significant number of teachers. Not one of them followed a critical
approach. I never even heard of a teacher wanting to follow such an
approach. What came closest to such instruction was the use, by some
teachers, of something called issue-centered approach. Note: such
efforts in critical instruction were never supported by a school wide
issue-centered curriculum. So, I will start this posting by
commenting on the effectiveness of issue-centered instruction.
HANDLING
BIAS
(July
1, 2011)
In
the last posting, I cited a book of readings regarding a curricular
and instructional approach known as issue-centered curriculum. The
text, Handbook on Teaching Social Studies: NCSS Bulletin 93,
edited by Ronald Evans and David Warren Saxe, proposes that teachers
present controversial issues in the classroom. The text argues for
this approach to, first, generate deliberation among students
regarding what should be done to resolve some controversial issue
and, second, give students the opportunity to clarifying their values
concerning the issue in question. Carol Hahn, one of the
contributors to the text, describes the approach as a fairly
apolitical one; issue-centered instruction simply presents these
issues for consideration; its content, its scope, seems to be guided
only by a desire to present students with issues that seem
contentious at a given time, issues that voters need to consider as
they go about their civic duties. Upon reviewing what the Handbook
is promoting, a question arises: Is that the case?
CONCLUDING
REVIEW OF CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
(July
4, 2011)
Let
me finish my review of critical pedagogy. Overall, I do believe that
critical pedagogy has contributed positively to our discussion of
what should constitute our civics curriculum. As I have mentioned,
critical pedagogues have directed their focus on the needs of the
disadvantaged. They have argued that we should bring to our
classrooms discussions about how the advantaged groups of our nation,
our economy, have used their leverages of power to promote and
institute policies to favor their positions and even advance them.
This morning I watched a documentary on HBO which spelled out how
wealthy entities, such as the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, have used
their resources to fund elections for judges who have a record of
ruling in favor of litigants who have been damaged by businesses –
how they have favored contractual agreements that have taken away
people's rights to access to the courts for redress of such damages.
This is the type of issue that would be featured in a critical
education curriculum. This is important and I also believe that such
efforts, if done in an open discussion format, would benefit our
students and the communities in which they live.
STOKED
ON TOCQUEVILLE
(July
8, 2011)
With
this posting, I want to begin my presentation of what I believe to be
the best construct for civics education. I have chosen to give the
construct the name of federation theory or federation pedagogy. I
will, in upcoming postings, explain the significance of the title.
But this posting is dedicated to giving you a better sense of what
good citizenship is about or at least what federation theory holds as
its ideal image of good citizenship.
CALL
FOR HISTORICAL CONTEXT
(July
11, 2011)
In
the last posting, I shared with you a lengthy citation from Alexis de
Tocqueville's book, Democracy in America. Generally, the
excerpt presented an American scene, described as typical of the
1830s, in which average Americans vigorously discussed and debated
the political issues of the day. If you did not read the last
posting, I recommend that you click the archive setting for it and at
least skim it. The political activity described is what I have heard
John Patrick call “hard democracy.” It surely would not
generally describe American discourse today, handling the current
issues at either the local or national level.
FROM
BRIMSTONE TO GENTLENESS
(July
15, 2011)
A
couple of posting ago, I provided an eyewitness account of how
politically engaged average Americans were over local political and
community affairs back in the 1830s. The account described a highly
engaged populous. The account was written by Alexis de Tocqueville.
We have drifted far from that type of politicking. Why?
INDIVIDUALISTIC
POLTICAL SUBCULTURE
(July
18, 2011)
Recent
postings of this blog have been addressing the question, what
happened to the levels of political engagement illustrated by
Americans in the early 1800s? The question arose from comparing how
Americans of those times, as described by Alexis de Tocqueville, went
about actively involving themselves in local political and social
decision-making and how studies, such as those reported by Robert
Putnam, document that in the last fifty to sixty years, American
participation has seriously dropped off, at least in terms of the
quality of any engagement (I have written extensively about this
change in previous postings).
