“Most educators agree
that schools need to prepare students for civic life, but differences in
ideology make this requirement a complicated endeavor. Although standards vary from state to state,
one aspect remains common: teachers will use state standards as guidelines for
instruction. Therefore, an understanding
of the type of citizenship a state advocates will allow educators to compensate
for partisan or idelological imbalances found within the curriculum” (pg. 357).
Journell, W. (2010).
Standardizing citizenship: the potential influence of state curriculum
standards on the civic development of adolescents.
Wayne Journell set forth
in his article, Standardizing
Citizenship: The Potential Influence of State Curriculum Standards on the Civic
Development of Adolescents, a split in how democratic participation might
be taught in schools in order to promote political socialization. Journell’s study uses the State of Virginia’s
Standards of Learning to discuss the ideological rift between civic
republicanism and liberal citizenship methods of instruction. Journell states civic republicanism
“emphasizes a common national ethos, a position that has gain momentum in the
wake of poor student performances on standardized test of historical knowledge”
(2010, p. 353). This ideological stance
also stresses a positive working relationship between citizens and the government. In contrast, “liberal views of citizenship
focus on political deliberation, questioning of authority, and social
diversification. In addition, liberal
forms of citizenship do not prescribe any one doctrine, preferring to allow
individuals the right to define their own view of morality and patriotism”
(Journell, 2010, p. 353). After
reviewing Virginia’s Standards of Learning in light of Journell’s seven forms
of citizenship (civic republicanism, character education, deliberative, social
justice, participatory, transitional and cosmopolitan citizenship) found the
standards to “perpetuate a certain ideological position (2010, p. 356). In the case of Virginia’s Standards of
Learning, the ideological position most perpetuated aligns mostly with civic
republicanism perspective with facets of liberal citizenship mixed within.
Citizenship provides
groups of people with a common identity and culture. As human beings we are drawn to others and
have an inherent need to belong.
Journell’s article discusses the means in which schools should convey
citizenship and the rights and responsibilities of citizenship to
students. The subject and manner in
which citizenship is instructed will have an effect on students’ identity. In his article, Journell states, “Moreover,
it has become commonplace to acknowledge the role family and public schooling
in developing the civic identities of individuals within American society”
(2010, p. 351). Identity, it affects
both our sense of self and our belonging in society. We belong to families, clubs, religions,
sporting groups, professional and student organizations, and more. Our identity is something that we as human
beings search for and find meaning in.
As we progress through life we are learning and developing our identities. So what is the role of teachers in forming
students’ identities? Specifically, how
do Social Studies teachers ask students to identify with their studies? Furthermore, what influence does citizenship
and the responsibilities associated with citizenship have on identity. Barton and Levstik, authors of Teaching History for the Common Good
state argue that identity has three components, family, national, and in
chronological time. “The belief that
history should provide a source of identification is a popular one in modern
Western thought, and it is at the core of much of the historical activity in
U.S. schools” (p.46). The thought that
teachers and schools are encourage students to identify with the shared story
of the United States does not fully take in the reality that much of American
society is built upon various cultures and beliefs. Therefore, to push one aspect or method of
engagement between people and government does not take into account the
cultures of those citizens who wish to interact with their government in a
different way.
Barkton, K. &
Levstik, L. (2004). “Teaching history for
the common good.” New York,
NY: Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group.
