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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
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)