CH A P T E R

JURISPRUDENTIAL
Learning to Think about
Social Policy
There is a cognitive basis for prejudice in lack of knowledge, poor reasoning
skills, and shallow commitment to basic democratic norms and values.
3im Shaver, writing about the teaching of the social studies, 1995
SCENARIO
Pat Salcidos senior civics class is examining current cases before the
U.S. Supreme Court and the contemporary debates among politicians about
social policy. The governor of California has recently made an executive
order dismantling the states provisions for affirmative action. One morn
ing, a few days later, one of the students brings in an article from the New
York Thnes discussing the Bakke case. (This case dealt with admission to
higher education institutions. Bakke claimed that special preference given
to minority candidates had discriminated against him.)
This case bothers me personally, Comments Tammy. You know a
number of us are applying for colleges, and my college board scores arent
too high. It seems to me, though, the important thing is that the actual
scores I have are changed depending on how rm looked at. If Im looked at
as an. anonymous person, then my scores are what they are. In some col
leges I would be looked at as a wodsan, and the scores would be higher if
they wanted to increase the number of women, In some other places they
would be lower because I dont belong to a minority group.
Wait a minute, says one of the other students, the Bakke case involved a law student. Are the same kind of issues involved in undergradu
* ate college admissions?
You bet they are, comments one of the black students. Weve been
shut out of a lot of private universities for yea

Do medical schools do this kind of thing? asks another. Do they admit unqualified
doctors?
Now just a minute, says one of the other students, just because some groups are
given a break doesnt mean that they are unqualified.
Well, what is the story on test scores? asks another.
OK. 0K, says Pat. This is obviously going to be a complicated case. Its important
in so many ways. I think wed better sort out the public issues and see where we stand
on them.
Well, how do we begin? asks Miguel.
1 think we ought to begin by collecting some information. Lets have one group find
an abstract of the case to see how it was argued in the lower courts. You can go up to
the law library at the university and Ill call the reference librarian before you get
there. Then lets have another group collect what the newspapers have said about it
since the case first came tO public attention. A third group can collect editorials from
the newspapers. I think it would be worthwhile if a fourth group talked to the
counselors to find out what information they have about college admissions. Another
group might anange to have one of the college admissions officers talk with us about
how they handle scores.. Can anybody think of anything else?
Yes, adds Sally. Do the people who sell tests have representatives we can talk to?.
Thats a wonderful idea, says Pat. Now lets organize ourselves into those groups
i-d begin to get the facts. Then each group can take the material theyve collected
and start identifying some of the issues. I think its going to take us quite a long time
just to get the issues identified. Then we can proceed to identify the value questions
that underlie those issues. Finally we can look at the implications for public policy
and try to come up wftti a statement about where we stand as individuals and possibly
as a group.
For the senior civics class at Mervyn Park High School, this discussion
arutiatesaposure to jurisprudential inquir5c which the class later used to resolve their
differences over the dance program. During the intervening months, exposed the class
to several more important public issues and taught th the framework for
jurisprudential inquiry.

Donald Oliver and James P. Shaver (1966/1974) created the jurisprudential inquiry
model to help students lea- to think systematically about contemporary issues. It
requires them to formulate these issues as public policy questions and to analyze
alternative positions about them. Essentially, it is a high-level model for citizenship
education.
As cur society undergoes cultural and social changes, the jurispruderitial inquiry
model is especially useful in helping people rethink their positions on impont legal,
ethical, and social questions. The citizenry needs to understand the current critical
issues and share, in the for-iulation of policy. By giving them tools for analyzing and
debating social issues, the jurisprudential approach helps students participate
forcefully in the redefinition of social values (Shaver, 1995).

ORIENTATION TO THE MODEL

GOALS AND ASSUMPTIONS
This model is based on a conception of society in which people differ in their views
and priorities and in which social values legitimately conflict with one another.
Resolving complex, controversial issues within the context of a productive social
order requires citizens who can talk to one another and successfully negotiate their
differences.
Such citizens can intelligently analyze and take a stance on public issues. The stance
should reflect th concepts of justice and human dignity two values fundamental to a
democratic society Oliver and Shavers image of a skillful citizen is very much that
of a competent judge. Imagine for a moment that you are a Supreme Court justice
hearing an important case. Your job is to listen to the evidence presented, analyze the
legal positions taken by both sides, weigh these positions and the evidence, assess the
meaning and provisions of the law, and finally, make the best possible decision. This
is the role students are asked to take as they consider public issues.
To play the role, three types of competence are required. The first is familiarity with
the values of the American creed, as embedded in the principies of the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence. These principles form the values framework
the basis for judging public issues and for makihlegaI decisions. If policy stances are
to be truly derived from ethical considerations, one must be aware,of and understand
the key values that form the core of our societys ethical system.
The second area of competence is a set of skills for clarifying and resolving issues.
Usually, a controversy arises because two important values conflict or because public
policies, when examined closely, do not adhere to the core values of our society.
Whenever a conflict of value arises, three kinds of problems are likely to be present.
The first kind of problem (vatue problem) involves clarifying which values or legal
principles are in conflict, and choosing among them. The second kin4 of problem
(factual problem) involves clarifying the facts around which the conflict has
developed. The third kind of problem (definitional problem) involves clarifying the
meanings or uses of words which describe the controversy. (Oliver and Shaver,
1966/1974, p. 89)
The process of clarifying and resolving issues involves clai-ifying definitions,
establishing facts, and identifying the values important to each issue.
The third area of competence is knowledge of contemporary political and public
issues, which requird that students be exposed to the spectrum

of political, social, and economic problems facing American Society. Although a

broad understanding of the histoty nature, and scope of these problems is important,
in the jurisprudential inquiry model, students explore issues in terms of a specific
legal case rather than in terms of a general study of values.
OVERVIEW OF THE
TEACHING STRATEGY
Oliver and Shavers work encompasses many ideas: they present us with a model of
society, a conception of values, and a conception of productive dialogue. They also
detail curriculum and pedagogical considerations (see Oliver and Shaver. 1971, p. 7).
It is possible to extrapolate several models of teaching from their work. However, to
us, the strategy that seems most re flective of their goals and thinking is one built
around a confrontational, or Socratic, mode of discussion. In Socratic dialogue, the
students take a position and the teacher challenges the position with questions. The
teachers questions are designed to push students thinking about their stance and to
help them learn:
Does it hold up well against positions reflecting alternative values?
Is it consistent across many situations?
Are the reasons for maintaining the position relevant to the situation?
Are the factual assumptions on which the position is based valid?
What are the consequences of this position?
Will the student hold on to this stance in spite of its consequences?
In the sample Socratic discussion that follows, students have been examining a voting
rights issue. The policy question is: Should the federal government compel Southern
states to give blacks equal voting rights? The setting for this session is a ninth-grade
public school classroom in Philadelphia in 1962. The teacher has oriented the class to
the case, and the students have identified the values in conflict as states rights versus
equality of opportunity. One student, Steve, has volunteered to state his position and
defend it. His position is that blacks should have the right to.vote. The teacher and
students are exploring Steves stance; throughout the discussion the teacher uses
several patterns of reasoning to challenge his position.
T: What do you think, Steve?
S: I think that the police power of Steve takes a position:
local government can go only so far, * that the constitutional rights of votingmaybe
the Blacks should have them.

T: Blacks should have the right to vote even though there may be all kinds of violence
and resistance? We should send troops into the South and protect every individuals
right to vote?
S: Im not saying that. I dont think that we would have to send down troops.
T: But what if it did go that far?
S: Probably, yes.
T: Suppose people called the Blacks who intended to vote on the phone and said, If
you vote tomorrow, something might very well happen to your kids. Do you think
we should send the FBI down there to investigate these intimidations?
S: No.
T: Why not?
S: If the threat is carried out, then I would send down troops or the FBI.
T: After something has happened to the courageous Blacks family, then you would
send someone down to stop it? You dont go along with the notion that, if there is an
atmosphere of fear and intimidation, we should do something to change the
atmosphere so that people will be free to vote? We shouldnt do anything until there is
actual violence?
S: In the case of Blacks, yes.
T: Why?
S: Because I dont want to give them complete power to vote. This is taking a little of
it away.
T: You want to deny some Blacks the right to vote, a right you are willing to give to
whites?
S: Yes.
T: Why?
S: Because I feel that Blacks are infetior to whites.
T: In what respect?
S: In intelligence, in health, in crime
Teacher explores the stance by pointing out undesirable consequences of the position
(Pattern 3).
Steve qualifies his position.
Teacher continues probing.
Teacher checks to determine the point at which the value is violated (Pattern 1).
Steve establishes the point at which the a1ue is violated.
Teacher checks consistency of S.teves nsition (Principle of Reaction).
Steve changes his position.
Teacher tests the new position for consistency (Principle of Reaction).
Steve gives underlying assumption for his position.
rates.

T: You are suggesting that if a person is tubercular or sick, you should deny him the
right to vote?
S: No.
T: If a Black person is sick, we dont let him vote?
S: Let him vote, sure. It is just that they are inferior for these reasons. Im not saying
because of these reasons Im not going to let him vote.
T: Then for what reasons arent you going to let him vote?
S: Because I think they are inferior because of these reasons. (Oliver and
Shaverd966!1974, pp. 150152)
By having to take a stand and defend a position, students usually become emotionally
involved in the analysis, making the discussions intense and personal. It is hoped that
with more practice, their posiuns will become more complex and well formulated.
MAJOR CONCEPTS
SOCRATIC DIALOGUE
In the Socratic style, the teacher asks the students to take a position on an issue or to
make a value judgment, and then he or she challenges the assumptions underlying the
stand by exposing its implications. For example, if a student. argues for freedom in
some situation, the teacher will test whether the argument is meant to apply to all
situations. The function of the teacher is to probe the students positions by
questioning the relevance, consistency, specificity and clarity of the students ideas
until they become clearer and more complex.
Most characteristic of the Socratic style is the use of analogies as a means of
contradicting students general statements. For example, if a student argues that
parents should be fair with children, the teacher may wonder if the parents function
is being compared to that of a court. Analogous situations that test and define the
logic and limits of positions are chosen.
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES *
Public controversies tend to fill many pages of our newspapers and many hours of
television coverage. A public policy issue is a way of synthesizing a controversy or
case in terms of a decision for action or chice.
Teacher uses an analogy to test Steves position (Pattern 2).
Student then laughs, self-consciously, aware of his inconsistency.

A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE is a question involving a choice or a decision for action

by citizens or officials in affairs that concern a government or community.
Policy issues can be phrased as general questions: Should the United States stay in
Vietnam?Should capital punishment be abolished?Should Government regulate
automobile design?
Public policy issues can also be phrased as choices for personal action:
Should I write my Congressman to protest the draft laws?Should I petition the
Governor to commute a criminals death sentence?Should I write a candidate
asking him to pledge support for auto design regulations? (Oliver and Newman,
1967, p. 29)
One of the most difficult tasks for the teacher is to assist students in integrating the
details of a case into a public policy question.
A FRAMEWORK OF VALUES
Political and social values, such as personal freedom, equality, and justice, concern
Oliver and Shaver (1966/1974, p. 64) in their strategy because these are the major
concepts used by our government and private groups to justify, public policies and
decisions. When we speak of a framework of values for analyzing public issues, we
imply the legal-ethical framework that governs American social policies and
decisions. A partial list of these principles of American government as found in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States is shown in
Table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1 THE LEGAL-ETHICAL FBAMEWORK SOME BASIC SOCIAL
VALUES
Rule of Jaw. Actions carried Out by the government have to be authorized by law and
apply equally to all people.
Equal protection under the law. Laws must be administered fairly and cannot extend
special privileges or penalties to any one person or group. Due process. The
government cannot deprive individual citizens of life, liberty, or property without
proper notice of impending actions (right to a fair trial).
Justice. Equal opportunity.
Preservation of peace and order. Prevention of disorder and violence (reason as a
means of dealing with conflict).
Personal liberty. Freedom of speech, right to own and control property. freedom of
religion, freedom of personal associations, right of privacy. Separation of powers.
Checks and balances among the three branches of government.
Local control of local problems. Restriction of federal government power
and preservation of states rights. -

Resolving a controversy involves screening the details of the case through this legalethical framework and identifying the values and policies in question. Social values
help us to analyze controversial Situations because they provide a common
framework that transcends any one particular controversy. However, in most
controversial situations, two general rules of ethical conduct conflict with each other.
Thus although a framework of social values permits us to speak of diverse conflict
situations in common terms, it does not tell us how to go about resolving
controversies.
Recent years have witnessed many social problems, frequently involving conflicting
values. Some of these problem areas and their underlying value conflicts are listed in
Table 5.2. As you read over these topics, note that although the values are identified,
the controversies remain. Alternative policy stances are possible on any topic, and
most issues can be argued on a number of grounds.
Prpolem Areas Sample Unit Topics Confficting Values
School desegregation Civil rights for nonwhites and ethnic minorities
Housing for nonwhites and ethnic minorities
Job opportunities for nonwhites and ethnic minorities
Immigration policy
Rights of the Communist party in America
Religion and public
education
Control of dangerous or immoral literature
Religion and national security: oaths,
conscientious objectors Taxation of religious property
Crime and delinquency Standards of freedom
TABLE 5.2 SOME GENERAL PROBLEM AREAS
Racial and ethnic
conflict
Religious and ideological conflict
Security of the
individual
Equal protection
Due process
Brotherhood of man
V.
Peace and order
Property and contract rights
Personal privacy and association
Freedom of speech and conscience
V.
Equal protection Safety and security of democratic institutions
Due process
v.
Peace and order
Community welfare

Adequate medical care: for the age&s for the poor

Adequate educational opportunity
Old-age security
Job and income security
Freedom of speech, conscience, and
association
Due process
Personal privacy
v.
Safety and security of democratic institutions
aThe v. in the listing of values suggests that the top values conflict with the bottom
values. Although this is generally: true, there are, of course, many exceptions. One
can argue, for example, that a minimum-wage law violates property and contract
rights and that it is also against the general welfare. Source: Donald Oliver and James
P. Shaver, Teaching Public Issues in the High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1966), pp. 142143.
Definitional, Value, and Factual Problems. Most arguments center on three types of
problems: definitional, value, and factual. Participants in a discussion need to explore
these three kinds of assumptions in one anothers positions to assess the strength of
alternative stances. The process of clarifying and resolving issues by solving these
problems is called rational cOnsent.
TABLE 5.2 (continued)
Sample Unit Topics
Conflicting Values
Organized labor Business competition and monopoly
Overproduction of farm goods
Conservation of natural
Equal or fair bargaining
Power and competition
General welfare and progress of the
community
v.
problem Areas
Conflict
among
economic
groups
Health,
education,
and welfare
Security of the nation
resources Property and contract
rights
Equal opportunity
Brotherhood of man

V.
Property and contract rights
Federal loyalty-security programs
Foreign policy

A basic problem in discussions of social issues is the ambiguous or confusing use of

words. Unless we recognize common meaning in the words we use, discussion is
difficult and agreement on issues, policies, or actions is virtually impossible. To
resolve these definitional disagreements, it is necessary first to determine whether
participants in a discussion are using the same term in a different way or different
terms for the same referent, and second to establish a common meaning for terms.
Then, to clarify comrnunication. participants may: (1) appeal to common usage by
finding out how most people use a word or by consulting a dictionary (2) stipulate the
meaning of the word for purposes of discussion by listing the agreed criteria, andlor
(3) obtain more facts about an example to see if it meets the agreed criteria for a
definition.
Valuing means classifying things, actions, or ideas s good or bad, right or wrong. If
we speak of something as a value (such as honesty), we mean that it is good. As
people make choices throughout their lives, they are constantly making value
judgments, even if they cannot verbalize their values. The range of items or issues
over which each of us makes value judgments is vastart, music, politics,
decoration, clothes, and people. Some of these choices seem less important than
others, and the degree of importance has something to do with what we mean by a
value. Choices that are not so important are personal preferences, not values. Value
issues such as art or the physical environment involve artistic taste or judgment of
beauty and many such choices of ideas, objects, or actions do become subjects of
discussion in our society and communities.
People make decisions on issues involving values because they believe:
(I) certain consequences will occur, (2) other consequences will be avoided, or (3)
important social values will be violated if the decision is not made. In a values
conflict there is often disagreement about the predicted consequences, which can be
partially resolved by obtaining evidence to support the prediction; however, to some
extent it is always a matter of speculation. Affirmative action laws will equalize
employment opportunity is an example of predicted consequences. Althcugh there is
some evidence that equal employment opportunity results from affirmative action,
this is partly a prediction based on logical grounds.
When two values conflict, Oliver arid Shaver suggest that the best solution is one in
which each value is compromised somewhat, or put another way, each value is
violated only minimally (see the following section on balancirig values). When the
value issues conflict because of predicted consequences, the disagreement becomes a
factual problem.
The reliability of a factual claim can be established in two ways: (1) by evoking more
specific claims, and (2) by i elating it to other general facts accepted as true (Oliver
and Shaver, 1966/1974, pp. 103104). In both approaches, evidence is used to
support the truth of a factual claim. For example, suppose we claim that lowering the
speed limit will reduce accidents and save gas. Thc first way we might support the
statement is to look at more sPecific claims. We might find that:

1. In cities that have adopted the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, accidents have
decreased.
2. Gasoline consumption decreased under the SS-mile-per-hour speed limit, while the
number of miles driven remained the same.
The greater the number of specific claims we can identify to support the conclusion
we are trying to prove, the more reliable the conclusion becomes.
A second way to support the claim is to relate it to other general facts accepted as
true. In this example, we might find that cars traveling at 55 miles per hour can stop
25 percent faster than cars traveling at 65 miles per hour.
Balancing Values: The Best Policy Stance. Oliver and Shaver emphasize that
values .can be used on a dimensional as well as an ideal basis. If social values are
constructed as ideals, they have to be dealt with on an absolute basis; either one lives
up to a value or one does not. For example, if you approveof equality of all races
before the law in the idear sense, you feel it either. has or has not been achieved. If
you see values on a dimensional basis,yoia judge degrs of desirable conditions on a
continuum. For instance, you can accept a compromise that ensures racial equality for
some people but not everyone. Politically, you might choose such a position, hoping
to gain morein the future.
Using the example of free speech, Oliver and Shaver suggest that if we see free
speech as. a total idealsomething to be preserved at all costs and in all situations
then we are unable to cope with situations in which it might be desirable to abrogate
free speech temporarily in deference to public safety. For instance, a speaker might be
prevented from continuing a speech before a hostile, potentially violent crowd. In
such a case, one might restrict free speech to provide for the speakers safety and
prevent the crowd from destructive action. The dimensional basis enables such a
policy to be considered, although citizens may well prefer an ideal basis.
Oliver and Shaver feel that the best stance on an issue is to maintain a balance of
values in which each value is onlyminima]ly compromised. To achieve such a
balance, each party in a controversy should try to understand the reasons and
assumptions behind the others position. Only by rational consent can useful
compromises be reached.
THE MODEL OF TEACHING
SYNTAX
Although the exploration of students Stances through confrdntational dialogue is the
heart of the jurisprudential inquiry model, several other

activities are especially important, such as helping students formulate the stance they
eventually defend and helping them revise their Position after the argumentation. The
basic model includes six phases: (1) orientation to the case; (2) identifying the issues;
(3) talcing positions; (4) exploring the stances underlying the positions taken; (5)
refining and qualifying positions; and (6) testing assumptions about facts, definitions,
and consequences (see Table 5.3).
In phase one, the teacher introduces the students to case materials by reading a story
or historical narrative out loud, watching a filmed incident depicting a value
controversy, or discussing an incident in the lives of the students, school, or
community. The second step in orienting students to the case is to review the facts by
outlining the events in the case, analyzing who did what and why, or acting out the
controversy.
In phase two, the students synthesize the facts into a public issue, characterize the
values invblved (for example, freedom of speech, protecting the general welfare,
local autonomy, or equal opportunity), and identify conflicts between values. In the
first two phases, the students have not been asked to express their opinions or take a
stand.
In phase three, they are asked to articulate positions on the issue and state the basis
for their positions. In a school finance case, for example, a student might take the
position that the state should not legislate how much each school district can spend on
each pupil becau this would constitute an unacceptable violation of local autonomy.
In phase four, the positions are explored. The teacher now shifts to a confrontational
style as he or she probes the students positions. In enacting the Socratic role, the
teacher (or a student) may use one of four patterns of argu&nentation:
1. Asking the students to identify the point at which a value is violated.
2. Clarifying the value conflict through analogies.
3. Asking students to prove desirable or undesirable consequences of a position.
4. Asking students to set value priorities: asserting priority of one value over another
and demonstrating lack of gross violation of the second
value. - V
Phase five consists of refluiing and qualifying the positions. This phase
often flows naturally from the dialogue in phase four, but sometimes the
teacher may need to prompt students to restate their positions.
While phase five clarifies the reasoning in a value position, phase six further tests the
position by identifying the factual assumptions behin4 it and examining them
carefully. The teacher helps the students check whether their positions hold up under
the most extreme conditions imaginable. V V V V V
The six phases of the jurisprudential inquiry model can be divided into
analysis (phases one, two, and .three) Vand ar:gumentation (phases four,

TABLE 5.3 SYNTAX OF JURISPRUDENTIAL INQUIRY MODEL

Phase Two:
Phase One:
Orientation to the Case
Identifying the Issues
Teacher introduces materials.
Students synthesize facts into a public policy issue(s).
select one policy issue for
Teacher reviews facts.
discussion.
Students idcntify values and value conflicts.
Students recognize un4erlying factual and definitional questions.
V
V
Phase Foun
the Stance(s),
Phase Three:
Positions
Exploring Patteras of Argumentation
Taking
Students articulate a position.
of
in
Establish the point at which value is violated (factual).
Students state basis
position
the desirable undesirable
terms of the social value or
of
consequences of the decision.
V
consequences
a position
(factual).
Clarify the value conflict with
V
.
Set priorities. Assert priority of one value over another and demonstrate
second
lack of gross violation value.
Phase Five:
Phase Six:
Factual Assumptions
Refining and Qualifying
the Positions

Testing Behind Qualified Positions

Students state positions and reasons for positions, and examine
Identify factual assumptions and determine if they are relevant. V Determine the
a number of similar situations.
and examine their
Students qualify positions.
consequences
factual validity (will they actually
occur?). V
five, and six). The analysis activities, which occur in the form of careful discussion of
values and issues, prepare the material for exploration. The argumentation, carried out
in a confrontational style, seeks to produce the V strongest possible stance.. V V V

SOCIAL SYSTEM
The structure in this model ranges from high to low. At first, the teacher initiates the
phases moving from phase to phase, however, is dependent on the students abilities
to complete the task. After experience with the model the students should be able to
carry out the process unassisted, thereby gaining maximum control of the process.
The social climate is vigorous and confrontational.
PRINCIPLES OF REACTION
The teachers reactions, especially in phases four and five, are not evaluative in the
sense of being approving or disapproving. They probe substance: the teacher reacts to
students comments by questioning relevance, consistency, specificity or generalit
and definitional clarity. The teacher also enforces continuity of thought, so that one
thought or line of reasoning is pursued to its logical conclusion before other
argumentation begins.
To play this role well, the teacher must anticipate student value claims and must be
prepared to challenge and probe. In the Socratic role, the teacher probes one students
opinion at length before challenging other students. Because a Socratic dialogue can
easily become a threatening cross-examination or a game of guess what the teachers
right answer is, the teacher must make it clear that the clarification of issues and the
development of the most defensible position are the objectives. The questioning of
evidence and assumptions must be tempered with supportiveness. The merits of the
case, not of the students, are the basis for evaluation.
SUPPORT SYSTEM
The major material supports for this model are source documents that focus on a
problem situation. There are some published case materials, but it is relatively easy to
develop ones own case materials. The distinguishing feature of this approach is that
the cases are accounts of real or hypothetical situations. It is essential that all
pertinent facts of the situation be jnchded in the case material so the case will not be
vague and frustrating.
A-controversial case describes a specific situation that has conflicting ethical, legal,
factual, or definitional interpretations. ihe case may corfsist of a classic historical or
legal situation, such as Plessy v. Ferguson in race relations, or the Wagner Act or the
Kohler strike in labor relations; or it may be a short story or fictionalized account of a
social controversy, such as

Orwells Animal Farm. Generally, each page of the daily newspaper cortains three or
four articles that either explicitly or implicitly present an important public policy
question. Usually some facts of the situation are presented,
but the original situation that provoked the controversy is not described in full detail.
APPLICATION
In developing their alternative framework for teaching social studies courses in high
schools, Oliver and Shaver were concerned with both the substance of what is taught
and the methods of teaching it. Consequently, the model provides a framework for
developing contemporary course content ir. public affairs (cases involving public
issues) and for developing a process to deal with conflict in the public domain,
leading students to an examination of values.
The model is tailored to older students and must be modified considerably for use at
the junior high school and middle school levels, even with the mostable students. We
have successfully carried out the model with extremely able seventh- and eighthgrade students but have had little success with younger children.
The confrontational dialogue that surrounds the argumentation of social issues is apt
to be threatening at first, especially to less-verbal students. Ve have had small groups
(three or four students) formulate a stand and collectively argue the stand with
another small group. The format allows for time out,-reevaiuating the stance with
ones group, and discussing the issue again. Initially, we presented the case, and after
students had selected the policy issue, we asked them to take an initial stand. On this
basis we divided them into small groups and told each group to come up with the
strongest possible case. The students understood that regardless of the group they
were in at first, they might well choose a different stance at the end of the discussion.
Neither the skills of reasoning nor the confidence to take a stance and discuss it are
acquired easily or quickly. Teachers should let a single case continue for a long period
of time, giving students the opportunity to acquire information, reflect on their ideas,
and build their courage. It is self-defeating to set up short, one-time debates over
complex questions. Formal instructional sessions teaching students directly about
analytic and argumentative techniques may be useful, but these should be introduced
naturally and slowly. The initial case materials should be relatively simple and require
little previous background. Some should be drawn from the studenis experiences,
perhaps in the classroom or at home. There are a great many sources of cases that
have been adapted for school use. The magazine Social Education frequently contains
reviews. The

Social Science Education Consortium h-s developed a number of historic cases with
extensive background material (Giese, 1989; Glade and Giese, 1989; GreenwaJd,
1991). Many of the Jackdaws contain suitable material for the upper grades and
secondary schools. At the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, a number of
faculty members, particularly Malcolm Levin and John Isenberg, have developed
interesting cases for use with the jurisprudential inquiry model. Many of these cases
are set in Canada and can be quite exciting for students not only because the issues
are excellent but because of the somewhat different context and legal system. In
addition, their publication, Ethics in Education, covers a large number of issues that
can stimulate the development of cases and the study of public issues. The Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education has a number of well-developed Canadian cases.
For many years instructors have organized social studies courses ar6und cases; the
jurisprudential inquiry model heightens the vigor and intensity with which such cases
are studied. Of course, cases must have public issues or value conflicts embedded in
them to lend themselves readily to the jurisprudential approach. But unless social
studies courses deal with values, both personal and public, they will have missed the
vital mainstream of social concern.
Once students become fluent in the use of the jurisprudential inquiry model, they can
apply it to conflicts that occur in and around their own lives. The scenario at the
beginning of this chapter is an example of students exploration of an issue that
touched their own concerns. Without such application, we speculate thct the study of
public issues, even vigorously pursued, can seem abstract and irrelevant to the lives
of students. Because students live in communities where issues abound, their study of
values should not be confined to cases far removed from them, but should be applied
to the dynamics of their own lives and the community around
them.
AGE-LEVEL ADAPTATION
This model is not easily applied below the junior high level. It does seem possible to
introduce some highly verbal upper elementary students to aspects of the model, such
as identifying issues and alternative value positions.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ADAP IATIONS
Initially, the jurisprudential inquLy model requires a fair amount of teacher-directed
activity and direct instruction. Gradually, as students become competent, the phases
of the model should blend into studentdirected discussions.

INSTRUCTIONAL AND NURTUIWsJT EFFECTS

Mastery of the framework for analyzing issues is the major direct learning outcome.
This includes skill in identifying policy questions; application of social values to
policy stances; the use of analogies to explore issues; and the ability to identify and
resolve definitional, factual, and value problems.
The ability to carry on forceful dialogue with others is another important outcome. It
nurtures the capacity for social involvement and arouses the desire for social action.
Finally, the model nourishes the values of pluralism and a respect for the point of
view of others. It also advocates the triumph of reason over emotion in matters of
social policy, although the strategy itself strongly brings into play the students
emotional responses (see Figure 5.1).

SM MARY
A I I$QTJJI{Y4ODI3I
Phase One: Orientation to the Case
Introduce materials.
Review facts.
Phase Two: Identifying the Issues
Synthesize facts into a public policy issue or issues.
Select one policy issue for discussion.
Identify values and value conificts.
Recognize underlying factual and definitional questions.
Phase Three: Taking Positions
Articulate a position.
State the basis of the position in terms of the social value or consequences of the
decision.
Phase Four: Exploring the Stance); Patterns of Argumentation
Establish the point at which value is violated (factual).
Prove the desirable or undesirable consequences of a position (factual).
Clarify the value conflict with analogies.
Set pri3rities. Assert priority of one value over another and demonstrate lack of gross
violation of second value.
Phase Five: Refining and Qualifying the Positions
State position and reasons for position, and examine a number of similar situations.
Qualify position.
Phase Six Testing Factual Assumptions behind Qualified Positions
Identify factual assumptions and determine if they are relevant.
Determine the predicted consequences and examine their factual validity (will they
actually occur?).
Social System
The model has moderate to high structure, with the teacher initiating and controlling
the discussion; however, an atmosphere of openness and intellectual quality prevails.
Prineiples of Reaction
Maintain a vigorous intellectual climate where all views are respected; *
avoid direct evaluation of students opinions.
See that issues are thorough!y explored.

Probe the substance of students thinking through questioning relevanc ,

consistency specificity generality definitional clarity and continuity
Maintain dialectical style: use confrontational dialogue, questioning stu
dents assumptions and using specific instances (analogies) to contradict
more general statements.
Avoid taking a stand.
Support System
Source documents that focus on a problem situation are needed.