The Need for Social Studies

jasonlknoll Education, US Politics, WI Politics

On January 10, legislators in the Wisconsin Assembly introduced Assembly Bill 617, calling for “the Department of Instruction to establish model academic standards.”  The bill is timely as the debate over the Common Core State Standards has been heating up in Wisconsin and other states.  I have no problem with people debating whether or not standards should be created by the federal government or the state; in fact, I think it is a discussion worth having every now and then.  My issue with AB 617 lies with the trend of ignoring or overlooking social studies.

In the past few years, there has been an emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) in education and the workforce.  The WI Department of Instruction has pages devoted to STEM, as do the US Department of Education and the White House.  The Department of Education rationalizes its focus on STEM by arguing that if we don’t push it, the US will not stay a “global leader.”  The White House wants to increase the amount of STEM teachers by 100,000 because they need quality teachers to help prepare students for the “high-paid, highly-rewarding fields of [STEM].”  I understand that as we rely more and more on computers and our technology rapidly improves, we need people to work in those fields.  I also know that American students lag behind their peers in the OECD PISA rankings in math and science. The White House also has a good point about how those jobs can be high-paying.  What I do not understand, however, is the lack of attention given to social studies (or at the university level the humanities and social sciences).

Social studies consists of the following fields: behavioral sciences, economics, geography, history, and political science.  These are the areas in which students learn about themselves and how to relate with others.  In these courses, students begin to understand topics like human rights, globalization, and the roles of international organizations and NGOs.  Teachers like me work to ensure students become globally aware and to appreciate and understand different cultures and belief systems in the world.  Social studies classes are where students learn about civic engagement and what it means to be involved in the public sphere.  Students also see how different types of political and economic systems work (or don’t work).  Understanding where we come from and what has happened before us, can help us avoid the mistakes of the past and make wise choices for the future.  (As a side note, I recommend checking out the American Historical Association’s page, “Why Study History“)  It is through these fields that we can work to eliminate stereotypes, combat prejudice, and fight against extremism.  As a result, teaching social studies and other types of jobs in these fields can also be highly rewarding (not just STEM jobs thank you very much).  Social studies is clearly important to creating a better global society.  So why, when it comes to creating standards or training teachers, is social studies overlooked?

This brings me back to the debate over the Common Core and AB 617.  Go to the Common Core website and read the standards (or at least skim over them).  Did you notice that they only have math and English standards?  History/Social Studies has been lumped into the literacy standards along with science and technical subjects under the English standards.  The only content standards we have for social studies in Wisconsin come from the WI Model Academic Standards, created in 1998.  According to Kristin McDaniel, the social studies consultant at DPI, “the State Superintendent has decided to indefinitely pause social studies standards revision in Wisconsin.”  In AB 617, however, the authors of the bill would like DPI to create new social standards in 2020.  Social studies is given priority over only the arts.  Even though WI has already adopted the Common Core standards for both English and Math, the authors of the bill want new standards for math in 2016 and English in 2017.  Think about how much the world has changed since 1998 (the War on Terror, globalization, BRICS, etc.), and yet, social studies teachers in WI will continue to use outdated standards.  Once again, we see that STEM wins out over social studies.

Here are a few questions I have for the authors of AB 617:

1. Since WI has new (as of 2010) standards for math and English, why not have DPI create new standards for science and social studies first, and then reexamine math and English?

2. What are you (and your Democratic colleagues) going to do to support and promote social studies education and programs in WI?

3. Why are all twenty-two authors/sponsors of the bill Republicans?  What about the bill was unappealing to your Democratic colleagues?

Thanks for reading.

Book 2- On the Muslim Question

jasonlknoll Books

Note: This is second book for the Politics and IR book club that I wrote about back in August.  My original schedule called for me completing this book by the middle of November.  I have this problem, however, where I have so many interests and a desire to understand new topics, that I can get bogged down in reading various articles and reports and get behind on my scheduled reading.  Best laid plans I guess.

I picked Anne Norton’s book, On the Muslim Question, because I felt it was a timely topic.  Since September 11, 2001, the relationship between the West and Islam has been strained, and I think it is always good practice to use education as a way to come to a greater understanding of “hot” topics.

One of Norton’s main arguments is that while the West (its institutions, values, etc.) may feel that it is under attack from Islam, in reality, the West launches its own assaults on Islam.  In other words, the West exhibits a great deal of hypocrisy when dealing with Islam and Muslims.  For example, the West points to the inequality of women in the Muslim world but still grapples with its own problems of the same nature.  Norton argues that by focusing on the oppression of Muslim women, the oppression of Western women is sometimes lost or forgotten.  A second example of attacks on Islam can be seen in the vitriol spewed forth by the shockjocks or far-right pundits and politicians who speak or act to outrage people by, say, insulting a religion.

A second main argument, and the one that I think we should all consider, is how to best recognize the presence of Muslims in the West and accept them into society.  Norton devotes two chapters that each make great food for thought when considering a solution to this problem- one chapter on equality, and the other on democracy.  In the chapter on equality, she builds more on the inequality faced by women in the West.  Additionally, her discussion about poverty and charity are relevant on numerous levels (think about the current debate about inequality).  Norton also puts forth two provocative assertions in the chapter on democracy- “democracy is rooted in courage,” (p. 131) and “democracy depends on fortitude, on steadfastness, on the ability to endure hardship.” (p. 132)  While those two gems may not necessarily answer the question of how to best accept Muslims, they do lead readers to consider their own role in civic life and the public sphere.  When it comes to accepting Muslims, Norton argues that there is no “clash of civilizations.”  Norton gives numerous examples of how Western Muslims have already integrated into society- popular literature and music, famous athletes, growing popularity of Middle Eastern food, and Muslims holding political office.

For what its worth, I would argue that the best way to end the “war on Islam and Muslims” is through education.  If we don’t want to perpetuate stereotypes and don’t want our children to fear “the other,” then we need to encourage people to learn about Islam.  In Europe, Germany seems to be proactive in this regard.  Just recently, for example, German schools began offering students classes on Islam.  Germany has also instituted a number of programs designed to bridge the gap between cultures (see my piece on Germany’s Opportuntiy from March 2012).  Here in the US, educating our students about various world religions and cultures should be an important part of all curriculum frameworks.  Ignorance is not bliss.

The next book up for discussion is Unequal Democracy by Larry M. Bartels.

Thanks for reading.

The 2013 Transatlantic Trends and the Future of the Transatlantic Relationship

jasonlknoll Transatlantic Relations

In September of this year, the German Marshall Fund released its annual Transatlantic Trends, “to foster debate on the strategic policy goals, objectives, and values of the United States and Europe as members of the transatlantic community.” (p. iii, Trends)  The purpose if my post is not to go through a deep analysis of the Trends (especially since the German Marshall Fund has already done that); instead, I want to give some of my thoughts on the future of the transatlantic relationship based on the results.

In the last two years, the United States has made some important decisions in regards to its foreign policy with implications for the future of the transatlantic relationship.  To begin with, the US decided to “pivot to Asia,” (see for example, “America’s Pacific Century,” by Hillary Clinton).  Ironically, towards the end of her tenure as Secretary of State, Clinton assured an audience at the Brookings Institution that “our pivot to Asia was not a pivot away from Europe.” (p. 10, “The Transatlantic Partnership: A Statesman’s Forum with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton“)  Additionally, the United States’ involvement in NATO operations in Libya sent a message to European members that they needed to consider taking on a bit more responsibility in defense and collective security (I recommend reading “NATO after Libya,” by Anders Fogh Rasmussen).  More recently, the NSA debacle and government shutdown in the US put a damper on negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

As a result of these issues, the question facing policymakers and scholars on both sides of the Atlantic concerns the nature of the transatlantic relationship.  Clinton, during her speech, proposed that, “Europeans were asking…whether [the transatlantic relationship] was even still relevant in the 21st century.” (p. 3 of the transcript)  Judy Dempsey, in her excellent piece, “The End of the Post-1945 Transatlantic Relationship,” asserted that European leaders “[do not] know what kind of new relationship they want with the United States.”  Perhaps examining the results of the Transatlantic Trends will give officials a starting place.

I was not surprised when I read that, “Americans and Europeans likewise find themselves challenged by the rise of non-Western Powers.” (p. 9, Trends)  The rise of the BRICS and how the West should address them was one of last year’s themes at the Brussels Forum.  I even wrote a piece about it titled, “Shifting Power and the Future of Europe.”  While the Transatlantic Trends illustrate that respondents on both sides of the Atlantic support strong US leadership and EU leadership, the report does not ask what that leadership should look like.  How will Europe and the US, for example, address the concerns like those voiced during the general debate of the 68th session for the General Assembly? Dilma Rousseff (President of Brazil), Manmohan Singh (Prime Minister of India), and Jacob Zuma (President of South Africa), all called for reform of the UN Security Council.  Wang Yi (Minister of Foreign Affairs for China), put forth that,

“China calls for greater representation and voice of developing countries in the global
governance system, and supports the G20, the BRICS and other emerging
mechanisms in playing a big role so as to make the international order fairer and
more equitable. China calls for reforming the international monetary and financial
systems and upholding the role of the World Trade Organization as the main
channel.”

Should the West continue to support the status quo concerning international institutions and bodies like the UN, or should they take the lead in shaping a new global order?

64% of Europeans saw “countries like India, Brazil, and Indonesia [as an] opportunity for new markets and investment,” whereas only 48% of US respondents felt the same way. (p. 17, Trends)  If that’s the case, would it make sense for European countries to “sit down at the table” so to speak when it comes to reform of the UN Security Council so they do not lose those economic opportunities?  Might those rising powers use their calls for reform as a “carrot” during negotiations on trade agreements?  Given the large difference in attitude by Europeans and Americans in their approaches to the rising powers, this might be an area where policymakers on both sides will have to make sure they are on the same page.

As for transatlantic trade, “fifty-six percent of respondents in the EU and 49% of respondents in the United States said that increased transatlantic trade and investment would help their economies grow.” (p. 26, Trends)  Since economics has a been a cornerstone of the transatlantic relationship since 1945, I am surprised that support for TTIP is not higher.  To me, this indicates that officials on both sides need to educate the public about the trade agreement, especially the benefits.  One report, “Reducing Transatlantic Barriers to Trade and Investment,” found that TTIP “could bring significant economic gains as a whole for the EU (€119 billion a year)
and US (€95 billion a year). This translates to an extra €545 in disposable income
each year for a family of 4 in the EU, on average, and €655 per family in the US.” (p. vii of the report)  In US Dollars, that’s approximately $127.6 billion a year and $880 per family.  If those numbers had been given to respondents, I wonder if support would have been higher.  With only 49% supporting the agreement, the Office of the US Trade Representative needs to publicize the “Fact Sheet” on its website and then expand on it.  They would also do well to address the concerns of the AFL-CIO, which argues that “the status quo approach to trade has resulted in increasing income inequality, stagnating or declining wages and unacceptably high trade deficits that are sapping economic growth.”

Finally, on the issue of security, respondents were asked if the transatlantic partnership should become closer (29% Europe, 29% US), remain about the same (25% Europe, 30% US), or take a more independent approach (42% Europe, 33% US). (p. 27, Trends)  A majority on both sides saw NATO as “still essential.” (p. 28, Trends)  What’s fascinating about the NATO question is that the biggest reason for both sides as to why NATO is essential is that “it is an alliance of democratic countries.” (p. 30, Trends)  While military threats actions were concerns, it seems that respondents perhaps see NATO more as a way to collectively deal with rising powers.  How should NATO address these attitudes?  Since European countries spend much less on defense than the US, what does this mean for the future of transatlantic security, or for that matter, European security?  I think Jan Techau, in his article, “Ambitions, Not Threats, Are the Key to European Defense,” summed it up nicely when he wrote that policymakers need to figure out “how to convince both politicians and citizens, in the absence of money, threats, and leadership, that defense matters.”  On a side note, I was shocked when I saw that “twenty-five percent of Americans wanted to see an increase in defense spending.” (p. 31, Trends)  According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US spent $682 billion on its military.  The second highest military expenditures came from China, at $166 billion.  If one adds up the military expenditures for the nine countries after the US, in other words the rest of the top ten spenders in the world, the US outspends them $682 billion to $618.3 billion.  How then, can Americans still advocate for more military spending?

While I believe that trade and security will still be integral for the future of the transatlantic relationship, I propose that both sides begin looking more at how to increase cooperation in different policy areas (environment, energy, education, etc.) and promote more opportunities for public diplomacy.  The German Marshall Fund offers a number of grants and fellowships that might lead to more public diplomacy.  The EU Delegation to the US also offers a few programs that would help promote a greater understanding of the EU by US residents.  Think tanks and other organizations here in the US need to offer more opportunities like these so that the transatlantic relationship will continue to be strong in the future and benefit more people on both sides.

Thanks for reading.

Book 1- Thinking about Leadership

jasonlknoll Books, US Politics

Note: This is the first book for the Politics & IR book club that I wrote about in August. 

I originally chose Thinking about Leadership by Nannerl Keohane for two main reasons: 1) I follow politics and sometimes write about my elected representatives/leaders here on my blog, and 2) I wanted to see if leadership as applied to individual leaders could also be applied to nations.

Part of my prior knowledge of leadership was based on my experience in the US Army.  The first letter of each of the seven army values– Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage- spell out leadership.  Additionally, as an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer, or for laymen, a sergeant), part of our creed was “All Soldiers are entitled to outstanding leadership; I will provide that leadership.”  When one takes those values and ideas to heart, one begins forming a certain notion of leadership (i.e. lead by example).  The concepts of responsibility and putting others’ needs before one’s own become important and a part of a way of life.  Going into this book, then, I had ideas about leadership based on my experiences, but hadn’t really thought about the theory behind it.

Rather than go through the book chapter by chapter, I want to touch on what I feel were some of the more intriguing aspects of it, beginning with Keohane’s definition of leadership.  She brings together two activities required for leadership- “Leaders determine or clarify goals for a group of individuals and bring together the energies of members of that group to accomplish those goals.” (p. 23)  She also points out that it is more beneficial to think in terms of “A leader is…” rather than “The leader of…” when thinking about leadership.

Leadership, however, does not necessarily mean power.  While leaders usually use hard or soft power to achieve their goals, there can be limits to their power due to the institutional context or the influence of other actors.  Conversely, a person can have a lot of power or influence over their group, but they may be poor leaders.  This leads to an important question- is there a difference between leading and wielding power?  In my mind, this is an opportunity to apply these concepts to nations, using the United States as the example.

With the world’s largest economy and largest military, the United States has a considerable amount of power and has not been afraid to use it.  If there is a difference, however, between leading and wielding power, then it is possible that the United States is not necessarily a global leader.  Additionally, if a nation’s leadership is based on the premise of “lead by example,” then the United States may not be seen as a global leader. Examples of where the US falls short in this role can be found in American environmental policy and its dysfunctional, polarized political system.  If a nation is not a leader in certain areas, however, does that mean it is not an overall global leader?  Additionally, if the United States (due to its considerable power) is sometimes able to bring other nations together to achieve a set of goals, is it considered a global leader?

One of the aspects I really liked about Keohane’s book was her discussion of followers.  I had never really thought about the role of followers in leadership before, so for me this was an enlightening chapter.  When it comes down to it, leaders cannot exist without followers.  The question for leaders then is how to get accepted by followers.  Leaders must realize that followers can influence through support or through opposition.  Finally, when considering different levels of leadership, one must not forget that a leader can simultaneously be a follower.

Keohane also devotes a chapter to gender and leadership, and asks an important question- why aren’t there more women leaders today?  I think it starts with how women are treated around the world.  Examining, the Millennium Development Goals, one learns that improving the lives of women will make the world a better place.  Promoting gender equality, improving access to education, and giving women better maternal health care (all MDG’s) would hopefully lead to more opportunities to be leaders.  In her conclusion to the book, Keohane asks if leadership can be taught; if it can, then perhaps one solution would be to teach females about leadership and put them in leadership positions throughout their education.  Speaking from personal experience, I make it a point to put my female students in leadership positions for our Model UN team, either as a co-president or a head delegate.  It might be small, but hopefully it’s a good start.  What else can we do to encourage females to be leaders?

The final aspect of Keohane’s book I want to discuss is her section about leadership and democracy.  The conundrum of democratic leadership is that “all democracies face the dilemma of ensuring that the work of leadership gets done without allowing leaders to accumulate privilege and perpetuate their power.” (173)  In other words, leaders must have power, but not too much power.  If they want to stay in that position of leadership, they also need to gain support, not just from followers, which can lead to another dilemma- distortion of information.  Both problems, accumulation of power and privilege and distortion of information, can have a negative impact on the democratic process.  This is where citizens in a democracy have the opportunity to play an important role- holding leaders accountable.  So how can citizens hold elected officials and other leaders accountable?  Voting?  Writing your representative or political party?  Running for office?  Or, for what it’s worth, given the accumulation of wealth, privilege, and power of our elected officials and leaders, is it still possible in the United States to hold them accountable?

To close, a few questions for you if you read the book: 1) How did your ideas of leadership relate with Keohane’s definition of leadership? 2) Is it possible to apply the theory of leadership by individuals to leadership by nations, or do we need to have a different construct?  3) What section of the book did you find most thought-provoking?

The next book up for discussion at the end of this month (if I can get back on schedule) is On the Muslim Question, by Anne Norton.

Thanks for reading.

The Enlarged EU

jasonlknoll European Politics

I recently came across a video from 2004 about the then impending enlargement of the EU, and I wanted to share some quick thoughts.  Even though the video is fairly short, I picked up on three main ideas: the role of historical memory, the importance of the meaning of words, and the future of Europe.

For Eastern European countries, overcoming the “legacies of the past” (as the narrator put it) was crucial for membership in the EU.  They had to adopt political and economic systems very different from those under communist rule- democracy and capitalism.  The impact of communist rule was also evident when Lech Walesa mentioned, “the stronger countries shouldn’t just force the weaker ones to step back.”  Not only does that statement apply to the way the Soviet Union approached its satellites in Eastern Europe, but it could also be seen as foreshadowing and the way the recipients of bailout funds perceive the Eurozone crisis.

As for the meaning of words, I could not help but notice the word choice of Romano Prodi and Javier Solana during their respective discussions of the enlargement.  Prodi talked about the “unification” of Europe, whereas Solana discussed the “reunification” of Europe (italics mine).  Those two words, while similar in meaning, have very different connotations.  Unification implies that Europe was not united before the communist takeover of Eastern Europe after the Second World War; however, reunification leads one to believe that Europe was somehow united before that time.  Historically speaking, I would use the term “unification,” since nationalism, imperialism, and militarism divided Europe and led to the era of two world wars.  Historians have made a similar argument concerning Germany after the fall of the Wall- should it be the “unification” of Germany, or the “reunification”?

The future of Europe was also a central point of discussion during the video.   The narrator pointed out that with the enlargement, the EU was becoming the largest market in the world.  Again, I see this as foreshadowing, given the importance of transatlantic trade and the current negotiations over TTIP.  Additionally, both Prodi and Solana brought up the question of Europe’s borders and the frontier of Europe.  If Iceland and the other Balkan states eventually become members of the EU, and Turkey’s accession process continues to drag on, can there be any further talk of enlargement?  Where does the EU go from there?

Finally, if you are interested in the Eastern Enlargement, you might want to check out Europe Undivided: Democracy, Leverage, and Integration after Communism, by Milada Anna Vachudova.  I read it a few years back for a class I took about the EU and it still remains one of my favorite books about the above topics.

Thanks for reading.