"Morally Panicked"

Introduction

What is the role of schools in promoting social efficacy? How do the current practices in education and the teaching and learning process impact social efficacy? What is the role of youth culture in society? Does youth culture have a role in the education process of our young? Is there a connection between youth culture and social efficacy? Youth culture is at the center of societal controversy and debate at present. Many from one end of the spectrum criticize its very nature and suggest that it only serves to destroy American morals and values. These folks call for increased censorship and the like. Many on the other end of the spectrum also criticize the nature of youth culture and suggest that it only perpetuates the status quo and enhances corporate and American hegemony. These folks call for more openness and less corporate domination of our culture.

We do need to acknowledge that youth culture is part of our lives and is very important to our society, our citizens, and especially our children, regardless of the debate or which spectrum one subscribes to. In a society increasingly fragmented by debate, misunderstandings, and lack of consensus, perhaps youth culture remains one of the few arenas that provides a forum for common understandings, dialog, and communication. If this is so, we need to better integrate youth culture in the education process; to enhance youth advocacy if for nothing else. It is precisely in the diverse spaces and spheres of youth culture that most of the education that matters today is taking place on a global scale (Giroux, 1994).

The overt goal of our schools is to enhance knowledge, skills, and values development for our children. Unfortunately these goals are, more often than not, top down, authoritarian, and promote passivity. These goals therefore seem to be driven by the ultimate goal of preparing our youth for the world of work. This is a "realistic" goal for schools, but should not be the driving force. Ultimately, we must prepare children for active participation as global citizens, and this means that we have a responsibility to teach for social efficacy.

Youth culture is a natural phenomenon that is unfortunately often driven and dictated by the dominant culture. The idea is to analyze these issues critically and also provide the essential efficacy children need, to facilitate their natural desire and wonder for learning about and coping with their world. This is vital if we are to "employ" youth culture and childhood desire to promote social efficacy and social justice attitudes among our children.

Teaching for Social Efficacy

What then is meant by teaching for social efficacy? Social efficacy in education moves beyond traditional practice, by suggesting the inclusion of student- and issues-centered approaches to teaching and learning. Advocates for social efficacy in education suggest that our schools are often demeaning and disempowering places where children are either bored into submission or where the transmission and socialization techniques destroy any hope for critical thinking and problem-solving development. The opportunity for teaching for social efficacy that promotes youth culture in schools is great, but we must discard the traditional transmission model of education and schooling in favor of a transformational model (Jennings, 1994).

Many see youth efficacy and empowerment as a major component of social education curriculum and instruction in our schools. The contention is that traditional social studies education may very well be the bad guy in this debate; for the history of social studies traditionally has been to perpetuate the status quo and often only allows one viewpoint regarding history. With the focus on "imposed" knowledge and skills and the growing accountability movement, social studies education remains reactionary so as to placate critics. Debate within social studies rarely centers around social efficacy or issues-oriented curriculum. The debate has been on what content should be taught and how that content should be "covered." A curriculum is needed that encourages participation, critical analysis, and action (Westheimer and Kahne, 1998).

The standardization and accountability movements are the real culprits. The concepts of critical thinking, problem solving, and issues-centered education are antithetical to this movement. If we encourage children to question and investigate themes and issues in depth, then the status quo and hegemonic powers might very well be threatened.

These methods now dominate the education process in this country. Ultimately, the goal seems to be to ensure that teaching and learning (at the very least) remain focused on transmission of essential knowledge, skills, and values. We seem to be attempting to "standardize" our children. Free-market capitalism replacing democracy as the governmental ideal is perpetuated by these endeavors. The place for social studies in a democratic society should be to provide fodder for dialogue and critical analysis of this "essential" knowledge, skills, and values curriculum and instruction. A social justice approach is critical of transmission, essential knowledge, and the "ideal" of free-market capitalism, thus is antithetical to these standardization and accountability movements.

Teaching for social efficacy is the answer to the threat enveloping our schools and society. We preach the joys of being a democratic society, yet democracy often cannot be found in our schools. We claim to be an open and just country, but school praxis has all but made our schools like prisons. Kids are prisoners subjected to the whims of the prison-like bureaucracy of the schools where teachers have become the guards. Kids are in schools to be molded into appropriately acting citizens. These citizens go along with the crowd, pleased to be living in the greatest country in the world.

Teaching for social efficacy suggests that personal stories and controversy be returned to social studies education. It suggests that life and learning is full of controversy and that we owe it to our kids to allow for investigating of social issues, past, present, and future. The premise is that a society not open and comfortable enough to allow for critique cannot progress and is a society in decline. Where is the democracy in this? Lies My Teacher Told Me (Loewen, 1995) is an excellent chronicle of these issues, particularly regarding history education and history textbooks. "Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on one's point of view, the truly meaningful and lifelong connections in social efficacy have been provided outside of the classroom, especially outside of the social studies classroom… And this is the real issue. Can there and really should there be a school and education connection between social efficacy and youth culture?"

Many progressive educators bemoan youth culture in our society as demeaning, hegemonic, corporate dominated, and basically bad for our kids. Many state emphatically that youth culture runs counter to social efficacy in education. An entire movement called media literacy has arisen to counter this perception. Any incorporation of youth culture in teaching for social efficacy must obviously bring critical analysis in as a primary tool. The fact remains however, that youth culture is an ideal theme for teaching and learning, both as a possibility for liberation and to discuss its use as a tool for empowerment.

Youth Culture for Social Efficacy

What is the connection we all seem to have with youth culture? If we are truly interested in providing meaning to kids' lives as we engage in teaching and learning, why don't we do a better job of integrating youth culture into education? As stated earlier, youth culture is rife with controversy and currently receives strong criticism from all areas of the political spectrum. Much of the criticism is warranted, yet despite political leanings there seems to be some general agreement regarding the underlying problems with youth culture and its impact on society and especially our children. What are not needed are simplistic generalizations calling for censorship or attempts at ignoring the influence of youth culture.