Easter Week Blog Post (Late on Religious Grounds)

The premise of the article is that the task of social studies is to help create active, participating citizens who are capable of high-level functioning in a democratic, multicultural society and that one must work to get around standard means of access like high levels of literacy in order to "democratize the process" to allow for "high-quality social studies experiences". The author puts forward the idea that using cultural synchronization and applying culturally relevant methods, one can close the literacy gap that favors more well-read and active learners by making the subject more accessible to a wider population/audience by reducing the literacy element in the teaching of classes like history, civics, government, etc. (something Shulman called dumbing down in A Nation at Risk). I object to the brief background of the study's overly broad claim that culturally relevant teaching began with "community nomination". While this may true to a certain extent in a modern academic context within a small country club of social-justice oriented teacher/educators, it's highly unlikely that teachers immediately following the Civil War during Reconstruction didn't themselves appeal to the very same notions of cultural immediacy and circumstance in schools in South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama by using local student culture via former shared slave experiences in order to relate materials to their students. For example, Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was cited frequently in first-hard histories of Reconstructionist history as a starting point for many Freedman's Bureau schools and immediate experience based learning based on social justice concepts combined to meet the high demand for literacy in former slave populations in especially rural, Southern districts. The claim is ahistorical and rather too ideological for its own good, which I've come to find is somewhat indicative of some ideological social-justice research in the field of education, that is lax on political policies and political historical circumstances and rather heavy on Post World War II notions of "democritization" and "Marxist" leaning 1970's socio-historical revisionist history that has its roots in Art history critiques immediately following World War II that called for a complete disconnect from "historical craftsmanship art" that was generally commissioned by the "elite" and "power-brokers" of society to reinforce their power via symbolism and subvert the common population. It was argued that a break with historic art was necessary to liberate art from its masters and "democratize it" and what we got was Modern Art. Much heavier on ideas and notions of art but with very little attention paid to technical abilities and standards in which an over-saturated canvas of splattered and overused paint suddenly with two contrasts in color began to represent the most profound insights into philosophical human existence. Beyond the introduction, the article is a fantastic mirror into how to use the personal experiences of classmates and colleagues to create a collective story that not only educates and promotes localism much like your assignment on family history, but if used properly in the first month of class could create a remarkably tight and close-knit community of learners in which students actually know each other in more profound ways that then creates multiple pathways to inquiry between teacher and student, student and student, parents and teacher, parents and student and the broader local community at large. Especially in small towns where an architectural local history appreciation project would not only create appreciation for students of their own history, but promote historic preservation and bridge the gap between generations and integrate the community more effectively. The ideas are brilliant and insightful and deserve our time and application, I only object to the critique that traditional literacy is somehow a threat to a more democratic process of education as being punk-rockish in its attitude, but lacking much substance given how impactful self-motivated, highly literate students can be in setting a standard of intellectual quality for the rest of the class to respond to when used properly in class. I think we can still bring in traditional methodology into the classroom on certain levels in order to push heavier content subjects that require a good deal of complexity, for example, Post War Europe and the revival of early 20th century nationalism based on massive shifts in populations in Eastern Europe. But in places like Virginia, California, New Mexico, Texas, etc. where local history is rich and awareness and integration is higher than Nebraska, this would be absolutely brilliant! This methodology would work extremely well when students have a wide range of experiences and especially in a school where diversity is more of a norm rather than exception (Lincoln East being an example of that exception). Question being, can they still be applied effectively to a new generation of kids whose general experiences are heavily based on Youtube videos of video games, playing video games online and escapist Marvel entertainment? Recent history suggests yes, but it's a question that deserves asking as in addition to methods like this, should we integrate video games, especially Civilization VI, in order to add another layer of geographic familiarity and historic representation in the learning experience?