This is the second in a series of four posts discussing the C3 Framework and how it relates to contemporary market-based educational reforms. In my first post, I described those market-based reforms. In this post, I describe how the C3 Framework supports market-based reforms. In my next post, I will be discussing ways that the C3 undermines the same market-based movement.
In some ways, the C3 Framework plays right into the goals of the educational market-based reform movement, particularly when it comes to the notion of standards itself. As I discussed in the last post, the market-based reform movement relies on being able to identify which schools are good and which are bad, and to those ends, standards provide market-based reformers with a measuring stick. By assessing the extent to which students, teachers, and schools accomplish the goals set forward in standards, reformers can put pressure on schools that are failing to measure up.
The C3 Framework puts forward detailed, albeit voluntary standards, that can be used to measure successful teaching and learning. What’s more, the C3 Framework connects closely to the market-based reforms in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in that “social studies teachers share in the responsibilities in literacy instruction.” Specific standards (or indicators as they are called in the C3 Framework) are directly supportive and provide vital connections between C3 and CCSS, and in places the C3 indicators even make use of the language of CCSS. It would certainly be difficult to make the argument that the C3 Framework is not at least supportive of the goals and concepts in the Common Core. At the very least, it seems obvious that the C3 Framework supports standards and standardization.
The state of New York provides a good example of the way that C3 Framework is supported by and supportive of standardization. According to EngageNY (2013) the C3 Framework is “intended to be a guide for local school districts in developing their Social Studies curricula” and further that it “recommends the use of the C3 Inquiry Arc as instructional methodology.” So it is not only being put forward as a guide for curricula, but by encouraging the Inquiry Arc the New York State Education Department is also encouraging the standardization of pedagogy. While the C3 Framework does not dictate curricula, methodology, or specific content it certainly supports others in guiding the standardization of such things.
It is worth pointing out that the C3 Framework is entirely voluntary, and thus can be held up as simply a tool to be used as needed in local contexts. Although, I would point out that No Child Left Behind and the Common Core State Standards were also voluntary. Despite the voluntary veneer, the carrots and sticks associated with these reform efforts make it difficult for states and school systems to resist projects such as CCSS and to some extent the C3 Framework. The C3 Framework is not NCLB nor the CCSS, and it’s only being adopted in a handful of places. Furthermore, the C3 Framework is generally not tied to major policy or political encouragement that I’m aware of and was not developed with the same intent that NCLB and CCSS. There are key differences between C3 Framework and these other voluntary programs, but they hold enough similarities as standards to make them worthy of noting.
As I noted in my first post, the market-based reform movement seeks to create a compliant working class through education. The C3 Framework does not entirely reject this position. The rhetoric of the C3 Framework argues that by making use of standards, schools will be better positioned to prepare students for college, career, and civic life. Two of those three areas align well with the notion of students as human capital who will someday be workers in the economy. The notion of career readiness is the most obvious element in market-based reforms, seeking to prepare students to have the skills needed to be economically productive. College preparedness, if you buy into the market-based reform movement, is only a more advanced form of career readiness. College is simply an extension of the preparation for a career in that the jobs that follow require a higher/more specialized level of training or are managers and leaders.
While C3 Framework does seem to play into the current concepts of market-based education reform, it is worth noting that in many ways the C3 Framework undermines the reform-based movement significantly, particularly in it’s emphasis on civic life. But, the designers of the C3 Framework choose to title it in a way that plays with, rather than against, the current market-based reform movements in education by giving weight to career and college as well. Does this mean that C3 is supportive of market-based reforms? Tell me what you think in the comments.