Response for 9/15

Review of Educational Research and Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age

Each point made within the writing of Banks et. al. could correspond with at least one, if not more, of the different theories presented in the writing by Knight Abowitz and Harnish. Right away with the first point, feminist, cultural, reconstructionist, and queer citizenship theories seem to fit right in. The idea of pushing educators to teach their students about the different forms of diversity throughout our world and country, and the unity that is inherently needed because of this diversity fits perfectly into all four of these discourses. Of the two main discourses discussed in the first reading, the first point more clearly links to the civic republican discourse, but still only lightly. The only connection between the civic republican discourse and the first point on diversity and unity is the mention and discussion of unity. Civic republican citizenship theories are very strongly based on the citizenship of the "country" and the love and honor a citizen holds as a member of their country. This leads to a small, but still relevant discussion about unity. The other main discourse, the liberal citizenship discourse, is even more loosely related in that it is very much based on individuality and personal rights and responsibilities. Therefore, the idea of unity is not mentioned at all, and diversity in only one sentence. The second point in the Banks reading is most obviously connected to the discourse on transnationalism. By stating that students should learn about more than their own country, but also how their country is affected and affects the countries and world around them, this point is stepping directly into the realm of transnational citizenship. This discourse is centered around teaching and preparing students to become local, national, AND global citizens. The third point, focusing on the teaching of human-rights in the classroom, if much more connected to the liberal citizenship discourse than the civic republican discourse. In liberal citizenship education, the focus is put directly on the individual and individuals rights, which would include what are considered now to be the basic human rights. Civic republican citizenship is too concerned about the group to delve too deeply into something so inherent in the individual. In truth, all of the critical discourse fit into this point in one way or another because they are all focusing on the ideas of focusing citizenship education on a specific group or subject and the rights that go along with it. Whether it be women in the feminist discourse or the poor in the reconstructionist discourse, each of the critical discourse discusses the education of basic human rights in some way. This also include the transnationalist discourse, perhaps more so, because it is focusing on the citizenship of the world and the basic human rights that should be afforded to every member of the global citizenship, not just in the more developed countries. The final point in the reading definitely fits most clearly into the liberal discourse of citizenship because the liberal theory if very focused on the individual and the job of educators to help students decide for themselves what their individual opinions and beliefs are. This is found most readily through the practical use of the knowledge they are being taught. Through their experience with democracy and the running of their own schools, they begin to form opinions about how the country is run and whether or not they agree as individuals with what is happening in their local, national, and global governments.