The world is changing. Neoliberalism, a belief system that promotes unchecked spending and acquisition above all else, in other words unabated capitalism, has shaped a world that where status is measured in how much one consumes, how many electronic toys one has, and has placed us in a race to see who can burn through fuel the fastest. Considering that almost every country now has cars, plastics, and general industrial technologies, and that those countries that who do not have them rush, cutting corners on safety and ecology, this has become a major problem. Due to carbon based emissions, it has been predicted that the global temperature will increase between 34.5 degrees F and 42.4 degrees F by the end of this century. Scientists have stated that any temperature rise above 35.6 degrees F will have dire consequences for the planet, speeding the melting of the polar caps, which would cause massive flooding, meaning the complete destruction of several ecosystems.
Of course, as teachers, it is our responsibility to teach students about these developments, and to teach them ways in which to prevent them. In his article, simply entitled SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Ros Wade goes to great lengths to suggest curricula and activities that will keep these issues in children’s minds and empower them to do something about them, that will effect positive shifts in local and global societies. Some of his theories seem to call on Banks work on teaching globalisim in the classroom. Some of the cornerstones of Wade’s plan to teach sustainability to our students include the needs and rights of future generations, a concern for social justice, and the idea of interdependence. Wade goes on to also include how to identify and rectify habits that lead to waste, and to instill a general importance towards conservation within students.
In theory these are all wonderful ideas. However looking at general Social Studies curriculum, the question I have is, how will it within our perspective programs? In a program already filled to bursting with teaching about citizenship, national and global history, and social justice, where does sustainability fit in? Can it fit in? I’m not sure, and to be honest with you, since ecology issues do have a certain gravitas, wouldn’t that area of the curriculum be better served if it was given its own class? I feel that it would be, since it is such a large and pressing matter. Sustainable living should be part of new science core, that perhaps can have social studies overlaps.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Blah, Blah, Patriotism, Blah, Blah, Global Society, Blah, Blah
For this week’s blog we were asked to reflect on three articles that we have read, Is Patriotism Good For Democracy? by Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaugh, On Defense of the Nation by Brenda Trofanenko, and I Pledge Allegiance To... Flexible Citizenship and Shifting Scales of Belonging by Katharyne Mitchell and Walter Parker. Each of these articles tackle what it means to be a patriot. At first glance, this seems to be a rather simple question, with a simple answer: a patriot is someone who believes in and is concerned about his/her country. But in today’s more polarized climate, in which the currant national administration has openly told the nation states of the world that either they are with us or against us, in which said administration will go down in history as one of the most unpopular presidencies in our country’s memory, in which we are involved in two wars, and in which the newest trend in academia is to discuss and speculate the loss of American hegemony, this question of patriotism becomes inherently much more complex.
Kahne and Middaugh’s piece explores the definition of being a patriot. They divide this definition into three subsets: those that are “Blind Patriots,” those that are “Critical Patriots,” and those who are “Active Patriots.” As their names suggests, “Blind Patriots” are those who unswervingly love their country, while “Critical Patriots” are those who love their country, but also admit that their country has certain short comings. “Active Patriots” can come from either group, but are involved in civic engagement. My questions for Kahne and Middaugh is why do they place such a pejorative term on people who express total loyalty to the nation? Furthermore, why is being critical and having an deep love for America mutually exclusive? Personally, I would never think of immigrating, but I would be among the first to admit that the United States needs to undergo some radical changes.
Trofanenko’s article delves into the question of how do we study the concept of nation, within the context of globalization, inside the social studies classroom. She argues that we must move past the “warm and fuzzy” view of a global society, as well as a the myths that have been used and abused in order to teach our children about the history of our country, and start to focus on teaching how American history plays on the world stage. This is a position that I wholeheartedly support, although I would like to add one addendum; in many of our readings, the term myth has been bandied about, and it is usually cast in a bad light. Myths are stories that explain how things came to be, and try to impart a moral to their audiences. By studying myths with a critical distance, students can learn what a culture values, and how a particular people see themselves within the world and universe. In other words, the teaching of myths is not the problem, the fault lays in how we teach our students those myths.
I’m not sure what Mitchell and Parker’s central point is. Although they claim to be arguing against Nussbaum, and what they perceive as her “either/ or” mentality when comes to teaching children about global citizenship, their description of Nussbaum’s views, with it’s concentric interlocking circles of identity, which starts at the local level and ascends into the cosmos, seems to be within their ultimate line of thinking. Although many of their ideas are exciting to me, including the view that today’s children see themselves as simultaneously part of the nation and the world, I think they are arguing for the sake of arguing. I might have missed something (it wouldn’t be the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last), but I think they might have been better served writing a defense or an addendum to Nussbaum’s article, as opposed to a critique.
Kahne and Middaugh’s piece explores the definition of being a patriot. They divide this definition into three subsets: those that are “Blind Patriots,” those that are “Critical Patriots,” and those who are “Active Patriots.” As their names suggests, “Blind Patriots” are those who unswervingly love their country, while “Critical Patriots” are those who love their country, but also admit that their country has certain short comings. “Active Patriots” can come from either group, but are involved in civic engagement. My questions for Kahne and Middaugh is why do they place such a pejorative term on people who express total loyalty to the nation? Furthermore, why is being critical and having an deep love for America mutually exclusive? Personally, I would never think of immigrating, but I would be among the first to admit that the United States needs to undergo some radical changes.
Trofanenko’s article delves into the question of how do we study the concept of nation, within the context of globalization, inside the social studies classroom. She argues that we must move past the “warm and fuzzy” view of a global society, as well as a the myths that have been used and abused in order to teach our children about the history of our country, and start to focus on teaching how American history plays on the world stage. This is a position that I wholeheartedly support, although I would like to add one addendum; in many of our readings, the term myth has been bandied about, and it is usually cast in a bad light. Myths are stories that explain how things came to be, and try to impart a moral to their audiences. By studying myths with a critical distance, students can learn what a culture values, and how a particular people see themselves within the world and universe. In other words, the teaching of myths is not the problem, the fault lays in how we teach our students those myths.
I’m not sure what Mitchell and Parker’s central point is. Although they claim to be arguing against Nussbaum, and what they perceive as her “either/ or” mentality when comes to teaching children about global citizenship, their description of Nussbaum’s views, with it’s concentric interlocking circles of identity, which starts at the local level and ascends into the cosmos, seems to be within their ultimate line of thinking. Although many of their ideas are exciting to me, including the view that today’s children see themselves as simultaneously part of the nation and the world, I think they are arguing for the sake of arguing. I might have missed something (it wouldn’t be the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last), but I think they might have been better served writing a defense or an addendum to Nussbaum’s article, as opposed to a critique.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
I Know, It's Only Historical Debate,But I Like It
History is the world’s first social science. As such, it exemplifies this academic area’s ambiguity,open -endedness, and dual nature. Like the hard sciences, history relies on meticulous research, empirical evidence (usually in the form of primary sources), and no small amount of focus and concentration on a given topic. But history, also relies upon several disciplines that are crucial to the arts. Historians must be able to creatively interpret data, empathize with their subjects, and at specific times, make intuitive leaps. One must not forget that many of the original thinkers behind the Post-Modern movement within the arts were historians. In many ways this duality exemplifies(at least in spirit) Cornell West’s statement that as historians “we have got to keep two ideas in our minds at the same time. The achievements as well as the downfalls. The grand contributions and the vicious crimes.” (Reprinted in Levstik and Barton, 1998)
Frans Doppen’s article Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb, exemplifies the letter of West’s original statement, which is concerned with the teaching of history. West argues we must acknowledge one of the Enlightenment’s most significant contributions to global civilization, the idea and ideal that humanity is a race of equals. In doing so however, we must also acknowledge the Western World’s role in the countless instances of imperialism, genocide, and subjection that Europe and North America has enacted over the centuries. When reading Doppen’s essay through this lens, we can see a clear, thoughtful and intelligent response to this pedagogical imperative that should drive the teaching of history.
Doppen’s study shows that students must be allowed to approach history through a multiple perspectives, and insists that the field should no longer be written by just the victors. Doppen chronicles how a unit that focused on the Atomic Bomb was taught to a group of high school children. The lessons were designed around the reading of primary and secondary source documents culled from both the Allies and the Japanese. The students were encouraged, but not guided to make their own decisions on these sources. They were also asked to create a “museum display” that focused on the events in question. By doing so the students gained an empathy for both sides, and were able to do something crucial in the field of history; they were empowered to the point were they were able to take ownership of the facts.
Melinda Fine’s article, “You Can’t Just Say The the Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with Your Position”: Political Discourse in the Classroom illustrates how no matter how fine ideals seem on paper, they still depend on mere, flawed, mortals for their transmission. Fine observes how the Facing History and Ourselves curriculum was enacted in a particular classroom in Cambridge, MA. Although Fine is generally supports and is enthusiastic with this particular curriculum’s methods and execution within this classroom, she also brings up a the fact that the teacher in this study also actively suppressed the views, and more importantly the conclusions that her students made that did not fit within her own value system. Granted, the students views were controversial to say the least, including the speculation on the validity of the Global Jewish Conspiracy theory and calling Israel to task on the abuses it perpetuated upon the Palestinians; the conclusions that these children made definitely raise a whole slew of questions that this blog has neither the space nor the time, nor the teaching experience to answer, but Fine shows that the teacher made these opinions into straw men, and allowed herself, and her students who held a more conventional view of history to knock them down. In short, Fine shows that although it is easy to pay lip service to the ideals of open discourse and student ownership of information, and that history is indeed a subject that is comprised of multiple perspectives, it is much harder to actually implement those ideas in the classroom.
Frans Doppen’s article Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb, exemplifies the letter of West’s original statement, which is concerned with the teaching of history. West argues we must acknowledge one of the Enlightenment’s most significant contributions to global civilization, the idea and ideal that humanity is a race of equals. In doing so however, we must also acknowledge the Western World’s role in the countless instances of imperialism, genocide, and subjection that Europe and North America has enacted over the centuries. When reading Doppen’s essay through this lens, we can see a clear, thoughtful and intelligent response to this pedagogical imperative that should drive the teaching of history.
Doppen’s study shows that students must be allowed to approach history through a multiple perspectives, and insists that the field should no longer be written by just the victors. Doppen chronicles how a unit that focused on the Atomic Bomb was taught to a group of high school children. The lessons were designed around the reading of primary and secondary source documents culled from both the Allies and the Japanese. The students were encouraged, but not guided to make their own decisions on these sources. They were also asked to create a “museum display” that focused on the events in question. By doing so the students gained an empathy for both sides, and were able to do something crucial in the field of history; they were empowered to the point were they were able to take ownership of the facts.
Melinda Fine’s article, “You Can’t Just Say The the Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with Your Position”: Political Discourse in the Classroom illustrates how no matter how fine ideals seem on paper, they still depend on mere, flawed, mortals for their transmission. Fine observes how the Facing History and Ourselves curriculum was enacted in a particular classroom in Cambridge, MA. Although Fine is generally supports and is enthusiastic with this particular curriculum’s methods and execution within this classroom, she also brings up a the fact that the teacher in this study also actively suppressed the views, and more importantly the conclusions that her students made that did not fit within her own value system. Granted, the students views were controversial to say the least, including the speculation on the validity of the Global Jewish Conspiracy theory and calling Israel to task on the abuses it perpetuated upon the Palestinians; the conclusions that these children made definitely raise a whole slew of questions that this blog has neither the space nor the time, nor the teaching experience to answer, but Fine shows that the teacher made these opinions into straw men, and allowed herself, and her students who held a more conventional view of history to knock them down. In short, Fine shows that although it is easy to pay lip service to the ideals of open discourse and student ownership of information, and that history is indeed a subject that is comprised of multiple perspectives, it is much harder to actually implement those ideas in the classroom.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Idenity in the Global Age
Globalization has changed the world in a number of ways. It has interlocked individual nation states’ economies together. It has created a variety of subcultures that have been able to transmit their values via the internet. Globalization has also moved a lot of people around, sending wave after wave of immigrants over national boarders.
For some countries, these sudden swells of new populations are a relatively new phenomena. Europe, once a stronghold for homogenization, a bulwark of a continent comprised of single national identities is now being slowly transformed. Pockets of diversity have sprung up in areas where once a single language had been spoken. There are now neighborhoods in France, England, Germany, and Italy, where the native language has been replaced by Arabic, Afro-Caribbean patois, and African dialects. Customs once observed in Maroco, Senegal, and Haiti, are now seen in Paris, Liverpool, and Frankfurt, with an increasing amount of frequency and proliferation. These countries who have for so long been largely unified by language and shared history are now trying to find ways to accommodate and incorporate new workforces from various social-ecconomic backgrounds, and new pupils in the classroom who do not have the same cultural background as the students that have been filling classrooms for centuries.
The United States, once a beacon for the world’s tired and poor huddled masses yearning to be free, is also facing these new challenges brought about by globalization. But the face of America’s attitude towards immigrants, and the faces of the immigrants themselves have changed. When America first became the Great Melting Pot, the aliens who had settled our shores were mostly European. Even with the particular cultural bias of different time periods (whether the dominant culture was set against the Germans, Irish, Italians, or Jews), these migrants coming to our shores would be nearly fully assimilated within a generation or two. This is no longer the case. Today’s American immigrant can trace his/her roots to South America, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. By the very virtue of the color of their skin, their facial features, they are indelibly stamped with the designation of “other.” These new cogs found within the Jeffersonian Great Machine of Democracy, face a cultural limbo; where they are simultaneously are and are not seen as American.
In her chapter, for the book entitled Globalization, Culture and Education in the New Millennium, Carola Suarez-Orozco raises the issues that are facing the children of this new crop of Americans. She points out that one of the largest challenges that children of immigrants now face are the cultural attributes that are ascribed to them. Racism in the United States has never been a secret. Expectations of people of color, whether they are of Latino, African, or Afr0-Caribbean descent have traditionally been low. As Marshall McClune has pointed out, the medium is the message in a postindustrial age. Children who are expected to do poorly, will. What is more distressing as C. Suarez-Orozco points out, is that in this environment of over-determined failure, a subculture forms. Academic achievement becomes a sign of cultural betrayal for many second and third generation Americans. Terms like “coconut,” “banana,” and “Oreo,” are now freely ascribed to ethnic minority children who succeed in school by their own communities. We are now living in a country where large portions of our population now see learning as a curse, a rejection, where children face the choice of being successful within the context of the larger society, or being accepted within their home communities.
For some countries, these sudden swells of new populations are a relatively new phenomena. Europe, once a stronghold for homogenization, a bulwark of a continent comprised of single national identities is now being slowly transformed. Pockets of diversity have sprung up in areas where once a single language had been spoken. There are now neighborhoods in France, England, Germany, and Italy, where the native language has been replaced by Arabic, Afro-Caribbean patois, and African dialects. Customs once observed in Maroco, Senegal, and Haiti, are now seen in Paris, Liverpool, and Frankfurt, with an increasing amount of frequency and proliferation. These countries who have for so long been largely unified by language and shared history are now trying to find ways to accommodate and incorporate new workforces from various social-ecconomic backgrounds, and new pupils in the classroom who do not have the same cultural background as the students that have been filling classrooms for centuries.
The United States, once a beacon for the world’s tired and poor huddled masses yearning to be free, is also facing these new challenges brought about by globalization. But the face of America’s attitude towards immigrants, and the faces of the immigrants themselves have changed. When America first became the Great Melting Pot, the aliens who had settled our shores were mostly European. Even with the particular cultural bias of different time periods (whether the dominant culture was set against the Germans, Irish, Italians, or Jews), these migrants coming to our shores would be nearly fully assimilated within a generation or two. This is no longer the case. Today’s American immigrant can trace his/her roots to South America, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. By the very virtue of the color of their skin, their facial features, they are indelibly stamped with the designation of “other.” These new cogs found within the Jeffersonian Great Machine of Democracy, face a cultural limbo; where they are simultaneously are and are not seen as American.
In her chapter, for the book entitled Globalization, Culture and Education in the New Millennium, Carola Suarez-Orozco raises the issues that are facing the children of this new crop of Americans. She points out that one of the largest challenges that children of immigrants now face are the cultural attributes that are ascribed to them. Racism in the United States has never been a secret. Expectations of people of color, whether they are of Latino, African, or Afr0-Caribbean descent have traditionally been low. As Marshall McClune has pointed out, the medium is the message in a postindustrial age. Children who are expected to do poorly, will. What is more distressing as C. Suarez-Orozco points out, is that in this environment of over-determined failure, a subculture forms. Academic achievement becomes a sign of cultural betrayal for many second and third generation Americans. Terms like “coconut,” “banana,” and “Oreo,” are now freely ascribed to ethnic minority children who succeed in school by their own communities. We are now living in a country where large portions of our population now see learning as a curse, a rejection, where children face the choice of being successful within the context of the larger society, or being accepted within their home communities.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Think Globally, Teach Globally
During the past decade or so, globalization and international studies has rightfully ascended to “hot button” topic status within the academic and pedagogical communities. With the advent of an almost universally accessible internet and satellite technology the field of communications has grown at an exponential rate. A person in Hong Kong can almost instantaneously share information with someone living in Brussels or New York. National economies are now indelibly tied to one another. The rise of the EU and the Euro is concrete proof of this. Immigration trends have also shifted. Once nearly homogenized societies found in Europe and Asia are now facing record influxes of migrants who are, looking for jobs and hoping to start a new and more prosperous life for themselves; these immigrants also hold onto their mother culture, and can now communicate with those they have left behind at will. While some countries struggle with the idea (and ideal) of the “Melting Pot,” America has once again, become polarized by the issue. Conservatives of all stripes work to close boarders, of both a physical and intellectual nature. Others see these shifts as a cause of excitement, and wish to understand, and help others understand this new, and in my opinion, vital world milieux.
In their introduction to Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium, M. Suarez-Orozco and D. Qin-Hillard go to great lengths to trace the above mentioned trends and tie them to the classroom. They argue, quite convincingly, for the need to teach our children how to adopt a global perspective. They report on how the concepts of national and personal identity, cultural mores, and personal communication has shifted in this neoteric, wireless age. They preach the gospel of globalization because they see international boarders being redefined, regional populations in a constant state of flux, and new cultures incubated within the fluid motions of interracial and intercultural marriage. From their pulpit, M. Suarez-Orozco and D. Qin-Hillard call for a radical reconception on how we teach social studies. The changes that they ask for seem daunting, but they are, at this point in our history, absolutely necessary.
The teaching and learning concepts put forth by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), seem to be a good start as far as how to address the issues that M. Suarez-Orozco and D. Qin-Hillard have raised. However I feel that there needs to be a bit more depth added to them. Concepts such as “there are problems as well as benefits related to globalization” (pg. 6) can be ideological minefields for the new teacher. It would help if these concepts could be modeled for educators by the NCSS. More troubling however, is that although the NCSS constructs a logical platform as to why we need to teach social studies, they do not argue for it; there is little that could answer critics in their proposal. In our day and age, it can be vital to ask ourselves “What Would Diane Ravitch and E.D. Hirsch Do?” (W.W.D.R.E.D.H.D) in order to gird ourselves for the inevitable attack, and to let ourselves do the exact opposite.
In their introduction to Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium, M. Suarez-Orozco and D. Qin-Hillard go to great lengths to trace the above mentioned trends and tie them to the classroom. They argue, quite convincingly, for the need to teach our children how to adopt a global perspective. They report on how the concepts of national and personal identity, cultural mores, and personal communication has shifted in this neoteric, wireless age. They preach the gospel of globalization because they see international boarders being redefined, regional populations in a constant state of flux, and new cultures incubated within the fluid motions of interracial and intercultural marriage. From their pulpit, M. Suarez-Orozco and D. Qin-Hillard call for a radical reconception on how we teach social studies. The changes that they ask for seem daunting, but they are, at this point in our history, absolutely necessary.
The teaching and learning concepts put forth by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), seem to be a good start as far as how to address the issues that M. Suarez-Orozco and D. Qin-Hillard have raised. However I feel that there needs to be a bit more depth added to them. Concepts such as “there are problems as well as benefits related to globalization” (pg. 6) can be ideological minefields for the new teacher. It would help if these concepts could be modeled for educators by the NCSS. More troubling however, is that although the NCSS constructs a logical platform as to why we need to teach social studies, they do not argue for it; there is little that could answer critics in their proposal. In our day and age, it can be vital to ask ourselves “What Would Diane Ravitch and E.D. Hirsch Do?” (W.W.D.R.E.D.H.D) in order to gird ourselves for the inevitable attack, and to let ourselves do the exact opposite.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Truth, Jusitce, and the Academic Way
As we have seen Citizenship Education can be a process fraught with controversy and pitfalls. At the center of this contentious field are the questions of “what kind of citizens do we (teachers) want our students to be?” vs. “what kind of citizens do they (various political, academic, and market interests) want our students to be?” For Kahne & Westheimer the answer to the former question is simple, they want students to be politically hyperaware activists who fight the never ending struggle for Truth, Justice, and the American/Canadian Liberal Way. Although my sympathies lay in this approach, I feel that Kahne & Westheimer’s philosophy on civic education can lead less experienced teachers into several traps. Although this “firebrand” approach to Citizenship might be readily accepted in a good number of schools in the New York Metropolitan area, I’m not sure it would play in Peoria.
More importantly Kahne & Westheimer downplay a vital part of Citizenship Education, namely community service. “These programs aim to promote service and good character, but not democracy.” [Kahne & Westheimer 2003] I think that this is a specious argument, as service and good character go hand in hand with democracy. The root of the word idiot comes from the Ancient Greek word idotis which means a citizen who is not concerned with the society and issues that surround him(sad to say, the Greeks where a misogynistic bunch, who didn’t see women as citizens). In order for democracy to work, we need people who are committed to and take an active interest in what is happening around them. This starts with providing children with an ethical lens with which they can view the world. Although I see their point in the fact that if all we do is teach children to be good, obedient, and loyal little hatchlings we are in danger of losing our democratic ideals, I feel that a happy medium must be found. In order to become a good, active citizen one must have a solid ethical/moral foundation upon which one can base his/her actions.
Oddly enough, Kahne & Westheimer found this happy medium. In their article “What Kind of Citizen: The Politics of Educating For Democracy” they outline two programs that incorporate this synthesis of ideals and action. Both the Madison County and Bayside projects had students address issues that where prevalent within their respective communities, collect and analyze data, reflect on what that information specifically meant to them, and then take actions to ameliorate the problems. I think that both of these projects provide a valuable guide for future social studies teachers.
I found the Wade article highly entertaining. Picturing a group of second grade girls petitioning so they can have an equal quality of playtime with the boys, or imagining a group of first and second graders pelting a mid level government official with questions reminds me why I enjoy working with primary school students so much. The Kahne & Westheimer and Wade articles work very well together. Teach younger students the value of fairness and justice, allow them to try to change their immediate surroundings, and then, when they are older, teach them how to enact those ideals on a larger level.
Works Cited: Kahne & Westheimer “Teaching Democracy: What Schools Need To Do” Kahne & Westheimer “What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating For Democracy” and Wade “Service Learning For Social Justice in the Elementary Classroom: Can We get There from Here?”
More importantly Kahne & Westheimer downplay a vital part of Citizenship Education, namely community service. “These programs aim to promote service and good character, but not democracy.” [Kahne & Westheimer 2003] I think that this is a specious argument, as service and good character go hand in hand with democracy. The root of the word idiot comes from the Ancient Greek word idotis which means a citizen who is not concerned with the society and issues that surround him(sad to say, the Greeks where a misogynistic bunch, who didn’t see women as citizens). In order for democracy to work, we need people who are committed to and take an active interest in what is happening around them. This starts with providing children with an ethical lens with which they can view the world. Although I see their point in the fact that if all we do is teach children to be good, obedient, and loyal little hatchlings we are in danger of losing our democratic ideals, I feel that a happy medium must be found. In order to become a good, active citizen one must have a solid ethical/moral foundation upon which one can base his/her actions.
Oddly enough, Kahne & Westheimer found this happy medium. In their article “What Kind of Citizen: The Politics of Educating For Democracy” they outline two programs that incorporate this synthesis of ideals and action. Both the Madison County and Bayside projects had students address issues that where prevalent within their respective communities, collect and analyze data, reflect on what that information specifically meant to them, and then take actions to ameliorate the problems. I think that both of these projects provide a valuable guide for future social studies teachers.
I found the Wade article highly entertaining. Picturing a group of second grade girls petitioning so they can have an equal quality of playtime with the boys, or imagining a group of first and second graders pelting a mid level government official with questions reminds me why I enjoy working with primary school students so much. The Kahne & Westheimer and Wade articles work very well together. Teach younger students the value of fairness and justice, allow them to try to change their immediate surroundings, and then, when they are older, teach them how to enact those ideals on a larger level.
Works Cited: Kahne & Westheimer “Teaching Democracy: What Schools Need To Do” Kahne & Westheimer “What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating For Democracy” and Wade “Service Learning For Social Justice in the Elementary Classroom: Can We get There from Here?”
Saturday, September 27, 2008
9/29/09 So, you wanna be a teacher?
Although one would assume that teachers take a central role in the debates, development, and implementation of polices and practices that shape the classroom and curriculum, history and the harsh realities of politics and economics has shown that this has not been the case. The conflicts that have shaped the field of education have not been fought by those who find themselves constantly on the front line of the battle, i.e. professional educators. They have been fought by academics who reside safely in Ivory Towers and politicians that are firmly enmeshed in the machinery of real politick.
Our own field social studies, is a prime example of the above mentioned dyad at work. The social studies curriculum was largely defined in 1916 by the National Education Association (NEA), which at the time was an appendage of the government. The actual term social studies was coined in 1929 by the American Historical Association(AHA). As Evans has shown in his book, THE SOCIAL STUDIES WARS, the forces that have shaped our practices as teachers have mostly been in the form of battles pitting progressives against conservatives. These conflicts usually take the form of the Right Wing calling for a return to a stricter adherence to the study of history to form a common cultural identity (which strikes me as odd, as a large part of history is individual interpretation), while the left produces rarified curriculum theories, such as MAN: A COURSE OF STUDY (MACOS), a project that was so thoroughly entrenched in advanced level social sciences, that teachers needed specialized training in order to teach the course.
This is not to say that teachers have been a passive herd that follows whatever shepherd that decides to lead it. It does however imply that teachers have not been very effective in banding together in order to speak out for the best interests of our charges, our students, our kids. This is partially the fault of our own internal squabbling, but it also has to do with the traditional “low status” role teachers have in American society. We do not pull down six figure incomes. We are not seen as the “movers and shakers” of this country. We do not have easy access to mainstream media, which would allow our voices to be heard. In short we are seen as instruments, and not as specialists.
Our own field social studies, is a prime example of the above mentioned dyad at work. The social studies curriculum was largely defined in 1916 by the National Education Association (NEA), which at the time was an appendage of the government. The actual term social studies was coined in 1929 by the American Historical Association(AHA). As Evans has shown in his book, THE SOCIAL STUDIES WARS, the forces that have shaped our practices as teachers have mostly been in the form of battles pitting progressives against conservatives. These conflicts usually take the form of the Right Wing calling for a return to a stricter adherence to the study of history to form a common cultural identity (which strikes me as odd, as a large part of history is individual interpretation), while the left produces rarified curriculum theories, such as MAN: A COURSE OF STUDY (MACOS), a project that was so thoroughly entrenched in advanced level social sciences, that teachers needed specialized training in order to teach the course.
This is not to say that teachers have been a passive herd that follows whatever shepherd that decides to lead it. It does however imply that teachers have not been very effective in banding together in order to speak out for the best interests of our charges, our students, our kids. This is partially the fault of our own internal squabbling, but it also has to do with the traditional “low status” role teachers have in American society. We do not pull down six figure incomes. We are not seen as the “movers and shakers” of this country. We do not have easy access to mainstream media, which would allow our voices to be heard. In short we are seen as instruments, and not as specialists.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Social Studies Wars 9/22/08
Social Studies when it was truly codified in 1916 to function as part of the American curriculum that would teach students history, the social sciences, civics, and citizenship has always been a field filled with controversy. Obviously this is because of the stakes being so high, and that there is no clear cut “right” or “wrong” answer to the question of what kind of citizens do we want our children to be? Do we want citizens who place love of country above all else, who are content with their part of the status quo, and are willing and happy to fight for the ideals of nation as set forth by its government? Or do we want to indoctrinate students to constantly be aware of the world around them, to not be blind to the ills of society and feel a sense of responsibility to right those wrongs? These two divergent paths are so obviously at odds with one another since the introduction of the Problems in Democracy course, and the negative reaction it garnered from American Historical Association. This conflict has proved to have remarkable staying power, and there seems to be no end in sight.
Things really started to heat up in the 1920’s and 30’s. Traditional values and institutions were shattered in the wake of World War I, and America was in the strangle-hold of the Great Depression. It was obvious, at least to the intellgensia, that a change was needed. One of the first educators to throw down the gauntlet, and propose a radical rethinking 0f the social studies curriculum was George S. Counts. Counts wanted educators and by extension thier students “to face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all its stark reality...”[Evens, pg. 50].
Harold Rugg was someone who was all too willing to step up to the challenge. Rugg compiled and published a seminal series of Junior High School Social Studies textbooks. These books placed an unprecedented emphasis on problem solving and social justice.
This “golden age” of social studies lasted until 1940, when Rugg was besieged by more conservative thinkers like Augustin G. Rudd and Orlen K. Armstrong, as well as bulwarks of American industry including the Hearst Group of Newspapers and the National Association of Manufacturers(NAM). NAM went so far as to hire Ralph Robey, a conservative professor of banking, to refute much of Rugg’s theories and textbooks. This lead to a smear campaign of national proportions that Rugg, quite remarkably weathered.
This controversy however, paved the way to another battle between progressives and traditionalists. Allan Nevins, a noted historian attacked the general social studies curriculum by charging that it almost completely minimized history. As America entered World War II, Nevins argued that a country could not expect its army to fight passionately and effectively if it did not know the glories of its national past. Although Nevins’ charges where eventually answered, the furor they created, combined with the historical circumstances that enveloped the nation during the post war years, drastically changed the course of social studies.
The post war years and the beginning of the Cold War firmly entrenched America’s position as a global power. It also bred a society that was both content with the status quo and which lived in fear of nuclear destruction. These cultural shifts were expressed through the conception of social studies. American History once again ascended to a place of primacy, and the social science component transformed into “life skills,” which ran the banal gamut from drivers education, to the proper etiquette of a first date.
The political ferment and social upheaval of the 1960’s and 70’s where reflected in the creation of the New and (what Evans calls) the Newer Social Studies. The New Social Studies were heralded by Jerome Bruner, Charles Keller, and Edwin Fenton. These scholars transformed the role of the student; no longer was a child to be merely a passive learner. Instead s/he would become a social scientist, who gathered and analyzed data. This goal however was a lofty one, and failed to address some of the most complicated times in American history, times that included the Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam war. This failure paved the way for the Newer Social Studies, led by Gerald Leinwood. The Newer Social Studies was an issues dominated approach, that expected children to become activists. While the New Social Studies met its demise because it was divorced from currant events, the Newer Social Studies faded under a tide of protests from the more conservative quarters of our country and the disconnect between pedagogical theory and educational practice.
These factors, combined with a specious argument that a perceived decline in education was linked to the weakening of America’s economy, once again left the field of Social Studies vulnerable to another ideological shift. A call for nationwide standards was hungrily adopted. Leading this charge on the Social Studies front were Richard Kirkendall, Diane Ravitch, and Lynne Cheney. They (among others) called for a drastic reduction of the social science component in the field, replacing it with traditional history in general, and American history in particular; all done in the name of a perceived national standards that fell in line with the cultural literacy campaign of E.D. Hirsch. Their voices were heard in Washington, and when the No Child Left Behind act was passed, their theories and values were firmly cemented in a dominant position.
Things really started to heat up in the 1920’s and 30’s. Traditional values and institutions were shattered in the wake of World War I, and America was in the strangle-hold of the Great Depression. It was obvious, at least to the intellgensia, that a change was needed. One of the first educators to throw down the gauntlet, and propose a radical rethinking 0f the social studies curriculum was George S. Counts. Counts wanted educators and by extension thier students “to face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all its stark reality...”[Evens, pg. 50].
Harold Rugg was someone who was all too willing to step up to the challenge. Rugg compiled and published a seminal series of Junior High School Social Studies textbooks. These books placed an unprecedented emphasis on problem solving and social justice.
This “golden age” of social studies lasted until 1940, when Rugg was besieged by more conservative thinkers like Augustin G. Rudd and Orlen K. Armstrong, as well as bulwarks of American industry including the Hearst Group of Newspapers and the National Association of Manufacturers(NAM). NAM went so far as to hire Ralph Robey, a conservative professor of banking, to refute much of Rugg’s theories and textbooks. This lead to a smear campaign of national proportions that Rugg, quite remarkably weathered.
This controversy however, paved the way to another battle between progressives and traditionalists. Allan Nevins, a noted historian attacked the general social studies curriculum by charging that it almost completely minimized history. As America entered World War II, Nevins argued that a country could not expect its army to fight passionately and effectively if it did not know the glories of its national past. Although Nevins’ charges where eventually answered, the furor they created, combined with the historical circumstances that enveloped the nation during the post war years, drastically changed the course of social studies.
The post war years and the beginning of the Cold War firmly entrenched America’s position as a global power. It also bred a society that was both content with the status quo and which lived in fear of nuclear destruction. These cultural shifts were expressed through the conception of social studies. American History once again ascended to a place of primacy, and the social science component transformed into “life skills,” which ran the banal gamut from drivers education, to the proper etiquette of a first date.
The political ferment and social upheaval of the 1960’s and 70’s where reflected in the creation of the New and (what Evans calls) the Newer Social Studies. The New Social Studies were heralded by Jerome Bruner, Charles Keller, and Edwin Fenton. These scholars transformed the role of the student; no longer was a child to be merely a passive learner. Instead s/he would become a social scientist, who gathered and analyzed data. This goal however was a lofty one, and failed to address some of the most complicated times in American history, times that included the Civil Rights Movement, and the Vietnam war. This failure paved the way for the Newer Social Studies, led by Gerald Leinwood. The Newer Social Studies was an issues dominated approach, that expected children to become activists. While the New Social Studies met its demise because it was divorced from currant events, the Newer Social Studies faded under a tide of protests from the more conservative quarters of our country and the disconnect between pedagogical theory and educational practice.
These factors, combined with a specious argument that a perceived decline in education was linked to the weakening of America’s economy, once again left the field of Social Studies vulnerable to another ideological shift. A call for nationwide standards was hungrily adopted. Leading this charge on the Social Studies front were Richard Kirkendall, Diane Ravitch, and Lynne Cheney. They (among others) called for a drastic reduction of the social science component in the field, replacing it with traditional history in general, and American history in particular; all done in the name of a perceived national standards that fell in line with the cultural literacy campaign of E.D. Hirsch. Their voices were heard in Washington, and when the No Child Left Behind act was passed, their theories and values were firmly cemented in a dominant position.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
9/15/08 Diversity in Democarcy
Upon a first glance the curriculum, ideals, goals set forth by James A. Banks et.
al. in Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a
Global Age seem to be firmly entrenched within the driving forces behind the
Transnational discourses of citizenship education. Both ideologies celebrate and
promote a global awareness in order to improve local conditions. Although this
perception has a good deal of intellectual heft to it, upon further examination
we can also see that the theory proposed by Banks’ research group is an
amalgam of almost every discourse that we have (so far) read about citizenship.
One of the defining principals of Civic Republican Citizenship is the “matter of
‘healing’ our fragmented contemporary civil society.” [Knight, Abowitz &
Harnish, pg. 658] A major impetus for Democracy and Diversity is the fact that
the U.S. is a part of in an increasingly globalized world, while simultaneously
meeting a steadily swelling immigrant population. In order to face these
challenges, while remaining as a unified democracy, Banks et. al. proposes an
approach to citizenship that embraces diversity while still placing a high value
on unity.
According to Knight, Abowitz, and Harnish, every new theory of citizenship
stems from the discourse of Liberal Citizenship. Diversity in Democracy certainly
owes a great deal to this tradition of thought. While the individual might not
play as central role in Banks’ view, he and his group are certainly proponents of
the open forums and lively debates that are so strongly suggested by Benhabib,
Habermas, Cohen, etc.
Banks et.al.. interest and concern for human rights and the effects of
migration find foundations in the Feminist discourses of Werbner & Yuval-Davis,
and the progressive thread of Reconstructionist theory; especially the mandate
to “think locally and act globally.”
The one discourse Democracy in Diversity has some trouble fitting into is Queer
Theory. While these two philosophies share a common ground in the primacy of
diversity, the seemingly infinite social niches that writers like Gilbert and Hall
propose seem to be antithetical to Banks et. al. all inclusive mission.
al. in Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a
Global Age seem to be firmly entrenched within the driving forces behind the
Transnational discourses of citizenship education. Both ideologies celebrate and
promote a global awareness in order to improve local conditions. Although this
perception has a good deal of intellectual heft to it, upon further examination
we can also see that the theory proposed by Banks’ research group is an
amalgam of almost every discourse that we have (so far) read about citizenship.
One of the defining principals of Civic Republican Citizenship is the “matter of
‘healing’ our fragmented contemporary civil society.” [Knight, Abowitz &
Harnish, pg. 658] A major impetus for Democracy and Diversity is the fact that
the U.S. is a part of in an increasingly globalized world, while simultaneously
meeting a steadily swelling immigrant population. In order to face these
challenges, while remaining as a unified democracy, Banks et. al. proposes an
approach to citizenship that embraces diversity while still placing a high value
on unity.
According to Knight, Abowitz, and Harnish, every new theory of citizenship
stems from the discourse of Liberal Citizenship. Diversity in Democracy certainly
owes a great deal to this tradition of thought. While the individual might not
play as central role in Banks’ view, he and his group are certainly proponents of
the open forums and lively debates that are so strongly suggested by Benhabib,
Habermas, Cohen, etc.
Banks et.al.. interest and concern for human rights and the effects of
migration find foundations in the Feminist discourses of Werbner & Yuval-Davis,
and the progressive thread of Reconstructionist theory; especially the mandate
to “think locally and act globally.”
The one discourse Democracy in Diversity has some trouble fitting into is Queer
Theory. While these two philosophies share a common ground in the primacy of
diversity, the seemingly infinite social niches that writers like Gilbert and Hall
propose seem to be antithetical to Banks et. al. all inclusive mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)