A Crisis in Civic Education

Click here for the study referred to in the previous post:

- A Crisis in Civic Education.

It'll be worth a look in class.

Here are bullet points from the study:

• Only 20.6% of respondents could identify James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. More than 60% thought the answer was Thomas Jefferson—despite the fact that Jefferson, as U.S. ambassador to France, was not present during the Constitutional Convention.

• College graduates performed little better: Only 28.4% named Madison, and 59.2% chose Jefferson.

• How do Americans amend the Constitution? More than half of college graduates didn’t know. Almost 60% of college graduates failed to identify correctly a requirement for ratifying a constitutional amendment.

• We live in a dangerous world—but almost 40% of college graduates didn’t know that Congress has the power to declare war.

• College graduates were even confused about the term lengths of members of Congress. Almost half could not recognize that senators are elected to six year terms and representatives are elected to two-year terms.

• Less than half of college graduates knew that presidential impeachments are tried before the U.S. Senate. 

• And 9.6% of college graduates marked that Judith Sheindlin—“Judge Judy”—was on the Supreme Court!

The First SOTU

It was - as you hopefully guessed - delivered by George Washington.

- Click here for the text.

For comparison's sake with the one recently delivered, here are a few facts about it:

It was:

- delivered on January 8, 1790.
- given as a speech to a joint session on Congress.
- given at the opening of the second session of the 1st Congress.
- the shortest: 1,083
- delivered at a 20.4 education level.

Give recent attention to gun rights, I found this part interesting:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The bearing of arms must be disciplined, and - as I read it - there should be a unique source of these arms. I'm not up on the history of that era as it pertains to arms, so I'm not clear at the moment about what that's all about. He does mention this in a section dealing with how the common defense is best provided for - so it seems connected to militias.

As far as other requests, keeping in mind that he has been president a year and he is in a position to make practical requests about items that Congress could provide him that would help him do his job, here's what he asked for:

- means to deal with "certain hostile tribes of Indians."

- executive positions - adequately compensated - that would assist " our intercourse with other nations."

- "Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization."

- "Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States."

- "the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home."

- " . . . facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads."

- "the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

And there's this bit I want to highlight separately because it suggest that Washington was open to the possibility of establishing a national university at least in part to assist citizens in governing themselves.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

This might be worth exploring in class. Some of these issue seem similar to those we deal with today.

From The Hill: Why Americans feel politically powerless

An early theme in class is the requirement that citizens in a republic be actively involved in its maintenance. I threw this quote at you for good measure:

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.

It was from Charles de Montesquieu - one of the better regarded commentators around the time of the constitutional convention. The great danger to public welfare is if people just check out, this is something that can very easily happen if they feel unable to impact events. Here's an update on the notion.


- Click here for the article.

The author takes the general population to task for failing to live up to its responsibilities - and perhaps having an unreal expectation of what immediate impact they can have on the political system. His key point seems to be that government classes seem to paint an unrealistic picture of the relationship between the governed and the government. People in power will follow the will of the people because we think they are supposed, despite evidence that they tend to follow the money - or at least the engaged. The lesson seems to be "citizenship ain't easy." Not a bad one.

American citizens themselves are a part of the problem and largely responsible for their marginalized status in the world’s most celebrated self-rule democracy. Why have the American people, the popular sovereign of our democracy, not challenged this political take over by the fat cats?

In high school government and civics high school classrooms across America young citizens-to-be are indoctrinated with a version of democracy based more on historic and political myths than political reality.

Magruder's American Government, a widely used textbook revised and published annually since 1917, is a typical example of schoolbook democracy. Here students learn the U.S. Constitution is built on a few basic principles, including popular sovereignty: "In the United States, all political power belongs to the people. The people are sovereign. Popular sovereignty means that people are the only source of governmental power. Government can govern only with the consent of the governed.”

As school kids mature into young adults and gain their own first-hand experience of the political world around them, they soon realize how ill-prepared they—the sovereign people—are to compete with wealthy election campaign donors and professional corporate lobbyists who dominate, between elections, the behind the scenes deal making that determines who gets what.

In addition, studies show that once in office lawmakers give top priority to the care and feeding of their election campaign backers and corporate lobbyists, not the citizens who actually voted them into office.

No wonder citizens feel angry and politically powerless. But why don’t citizens unite and push back?

The late Yale professor Edmund Morgan, author of, Inventing the People: the Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America, provides a more complete explanation for the failure of American citizens to react more strongly against the outsourcing of their democracy.

Clinging to their classroom version of democracy in which they are the ultimate and legitimate political power in America, citizens, according to Morgan, willingly suspend their disbelief in schoolbook myths and pretend they are true——even with abundant real-life evidence that they are not.

“The success of government,” says Morgan, “requires the acceptance of fictions, requires the willing suspension of disbelief, requires us to believe that the emperor is clothed even though we can see that he is not…Government requires make-believe…Make believe that the people have a voice or make believe that the representatives of the people are the people.”

This tug-of-war between political myths and political reality has driven citizens out of the political arena and, in effect, outsourced the American democracy to wealthy campaign financiers and powerful corporations.

If you are really ambitious - here are two books on the history of citizenship

Both are by a man named Derek Heater and can be found on Google Books.

- A Brief History of Citizenship.
- A History of Education for Citizenship.

The last one is obviously related to the subject matter of the opening weeks of the class, so give it a look if you care to.

Textbook wars continue in Texas

For this week's written assignment for GOVT 2306.

A few items related to the controversy over what the State Board of Education wants students in Texas' K-12 public schools to learn about hostory and government.

- Houston Chronicle: New Texas textbooks downplay slavery in the Civil War.
- The Atlantic: Was Moses a Founding Father?
- Washington Post: Texas officials: Schools should teach that slavery was ‘side issue’ to Civil War.
- Washington Post: Texas board approves social studies standards that perceived liberal bias.
- Los Angeles Times: Do new Texas textbooks whitewash slavery and segregation?
- The Texas Tribune: Rod Paige Address State Board of Education.

From the Washington Post: Arizona will require high school students to pass citizenship test to graduate. Can you pass?

They want their high school students to know as much as newly naturalized citizens.

- Click here for the article.

Arizona high school students will have to pass the same test that immigrants must take to obtain citizenship before they graduate under a new law signed Thursday by Gov. Doug Ducey (R).

The first-of-its-kind law will require students to take the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization civics test, a set of 100 basic questions on U.S. government and history. Students will have to get 60 of the 100 questions correct in order to graduate.

The measure passed the state House and Senate in a single day. It’s one of the first measures Ducey, inaugurated earlier this week, signed into law.

Arizona is just the first state to require citizenship tests for high school students. The Civics Education Initiative is pursuing similar legislation in dozens of states, with the goal of mandating the test in all 50 states by Sept. 17, 2017 — the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. In Arizona, CEI’s effort was spearheaded by former senators Dennis DeConcini (D) and Jon Kyl (R).

In total, 18 states are likely to consider civics test requirements this year. North Dakota legislators this week advanced their own version through a state House committee.

We'll take some of this in class.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Texas Seen as "Kind of an Electoral Wasteland"

As you will see in both 2305 and 2306. Voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest in all nations, and turnout in Texas is among the lowest among all states. We will investigate both later this semester - though this is a topic that we cover more in 2305 than 2306.

The Texas Tribune reports on the latest primary number - which are as low as they've ever been.

- click here for the article.

Some highlights:

. . . there is no way to spin Texas voters’ anemic level of interest into a positive commentary on civic engagement.

“It is kind of an electoral wasteland — not a lot of competition, not a lot of motivation for the parties to get out and mobilize,” said Michael P. McDonald, associate professor of government and politics at George Mason University. “If there is no battle, they just sit back and become weak and flabby.”

In years when voters are not driven to the polls by presidential races — those always inflate the numbers — Texas is one of the worst places in the country for voter turnout and engagement.

In 2010, 32.1 percent of the state’s eligible adults voted in the general election, according to the United States Elections Project maintained by McDonald. Only one place was worst: the District of Columbia, with 28.9 percent. The national rate was 41 percent — still lousy, but much better than in Texas. Minnesota was at the head of the class that year, turning out 55.4 percent of its eligible population.

The lack of meaningful electoral competition in the state makes the races less interesting and leads to voters tuning the campaigns out. People get in the habit of not voting. One of the reasons primary races are not competitive is that they have been designed not to be. Gerrymandering ensures that certain districts will be represented by Republicans, while others will be represented by Democrats. This suppresses the need to vote. In fact, high turnout might be threatening to an incumbent, so they might have an incentive to keep turnout low.

Most districts are drawn to favor one party or another, meaning that the winner of the Democratic or Republican primary will win in November unless they make a terrible mistake and also have an opponent on the general election ballot. Texas has 36 congressional seats. In seven of them, the Republican candidate has no Democratic opponent. In six, the Democratic candidate has no Republican opponent. Only one of the remaining seats, the 23rd Congressional District, is considered winnable by either major party in November. The overall level of competition is similar in the 31-member Texas Senate and in the 150-member Texas House.

Try selling that to an unmotivated voter.

This helps us come to grips with the reality of low voter turnout in the state. We'll discuss this more, its an ongoing issue in the state, but it is worth remembering that not everyone benefits from high voter turnout. There are reasons it is suppressed.

Both 2305 and 2306 students wade through early material on civic virtue and engagement and how important these are in a republic.

The last post on civic education - at least for a little while

Two quick links.

This takes you to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Civic Education. It provides - as you would assume - a scholarly look at the subject.

And this takes you so a recent article in the Atlantic detailing the gradual decrease in the amount of time spent in the classroom on government and civics. The author does not think its a good thing and wonders if No Child Left Behind has contributed to a decline in civic education.

Why has a traditionally “core subject”, which was ranked in the same academic hierarchy as English, science, and math for decades, been sidelined in thousands of American classrooms?

The shift in curriculum began in the early years of the Cold War. While U.S. military and technological innovation brought World War II to a close, it was a later use of technology--the Soviet launching of Sputnik in 1957--that historian Thomas A. Bailey called the equivalent of a “psychological Pearl Harbor” for many Americans. It created deep feelings of inadequacy and a belief that the U.S. was falling behind in developing new technology and weapons, which led to the passage of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. This legislation pumped $1 billion over four years into math and science programs in both K-12 schools and universities.

Despite this extra focus on math and science, social studies managed to make it through the end of the Cold War relatively unscathed (in fact, the number of classroom hours dedicated to teaching social studies in grades 1-4 peaked in the 1993-1994 school year at 3 hours a week). But drastic change came a decade later with the passage of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation.

No Child Left Behind was signed into law in an attempt to address the growing achievement gap between affluent and low-income students. It was a controversial piece of legislation from the start, mainly because of its “one size fits all’” approach: It uses annual standardized tests to determine how well students are performing in reading and math and then uses those scores to determine the amounts of federal funding schools receive.

Besides the obvious criticism that low-performing schools--arguably the ones that need the most increase in funding--are disproportionally punished for their low scores, critics also believe that No Child Left Behind has narrowed the curriculum. Since the standardized tests focus exclusively on English and math, and those scores determine the bulk of a school’s federal funding, schools have been forced to increase time and resources in these subjects at the expense of all others, including social studies.

This had led to a civic achievement gap. Poor students know less about government than wealthier ones and are less able to represent their interests effectively

From the Atlantic: 'You Have to Know History to Actually Teach It'

An interesting interview with a noted author and scholar on teaching etc...

Some selections:

I'm strongly in favor of students knowing the facts of history, not just memorizing or having it drilled into their heads. I'm certainly against this testing mania that's going on now where you can judge whether someone really understands history by their performance on a multiple-choice test.

Knowledge of the events of history is important, obviously, but also I think what I see in college students, that seems to be lacking at least when they come into college, is writing experience. In other words, being able to write that little essay with an argument. I see that they think, "OK, there are the facts of history and that's it—what more is there to be said?"

. . . I think there's a general tendency in education nowadays toward what you might call the pragmatic side of education, which is fine. The students need to have jobs eventually, no question about it. But education is not just a vocational enterprise—teaching people the skills that will enable them to get jobs--although that's obviously part of it. [We]'re also teaching citizens. We try to teach people the skills that come along with studying history. The skills of evaluating evidence, of posing questions and answering them, of writing, of mobilizing information in order to make an argument. I think all of that is important in a democratic society if people are actually going to be active citizens. Teaching to the test does not really encourage emphasis on those aspects of the study of history.

. . .There are many younger historians, much younger than I am, who are more familiar with using social media as part of history teaching—using all sorts of Internet and other resources in classrooms. I'm sure that can be very positive, although it might become distracting. My experience as a teacher and as a student long ago, is that there is no substitute for a good teacher. I don't care what bells and whistles that you're using, it's the teacher in the classroom. That's why I'm a little skeptical about MOOCs, online education. I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that the presence of a teacher is actually critical to learning.

. . . I think it's important that people who are teaching history do have training in history. A lot of times people have education degrees, which have not actually provided them with a lot of training in the subject. They know a lot about methodology. [That’s] important, but as I say, the key thing is really to love the subject, to be able to convey that to your students, and if you can do that, I think you'll be a great teacher.

How to improve youth civic engagement?

The Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge has released a report stating that "in the 2012 presidential election, only 10 percent of American youth between 18 and 24 met a standard of 'informed engagement'."

They like to improve that by doing - among other things:

• 1) Lowering the voting age to 17 in municipal or state elections so that students can be encouraged to vote while they are taking a required civics class
• 2) State standards for civics that focus on developing advanced civic skills, such as deliberation and collaboration, rather than memorizing facts
• 3) Same Day Voter Registration which can improve turnout by making registration less of a barrier to voting
• 4) Policies that encourage discussion of current, controversial issues and that protect teachers’ careers when they encourage such discussion

The Heart of the Matter

A report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on the importance of the humanities and social sciences in a democratic republic. It articulates the need for both outlines strategies for improving civic education:

The nation’s founders understood that their experiment in republican government—a government bound by law and rooted in the consent of the governed—depends on citizens who can think critically, understand their own history, and give voice to their beliefs while respecting the views of others. These qualities are not born, but taught, beginning with our youngest children. In fact, our first three presidents emphasized general education as an indispensable component of future prosperity.

A general education is just as important today, and it is just as clear that it must include the humanities and the social sciences. The humanities—including the study of languages, literature, history, jurisprudence, philosophy, comparative religion, ethics, and the arts—are disciplines of memory and imagination, telling us where we have been and helping us envision where we are going. The social sciences—including anthropology, archaeology, economics, political science, sociology, and psychology—are disciplines of behavioral, interpersonal, and organizational processes, employing empirical and scientific methods to reveal patterns in the lives of real people.

Together, they provide an intellectual framework and context for understanding and thriving in a changing world, and they connect us with our global community. When we study these subjects, we learn not only what but how and why. The humanities and social sciences teach us to question, analyze, debate, evaluate, interpret, synthesize, compare evidence, and communicate—skills that are critically important in shaping adults who can become independent thinkers.

Civic education classes losing out to STEM classes

. . . which leads some to worry about the impact this might have on the ability of the people to govern themselves effectively. It seems that we are looking at a trade off between an educational system designed to develop a productive workforce and one designed to be integral parts of republican governance.

Presumably we cannot do both.

From the Heartland Institute:

The National Assessment of Educational Progress exams in civics, U.S. history, and geography have been indefinitely postponed for fourth and twelfth graders. The Obama administration says this is due to a $6.8 million sequestration budget cut. The three exams will be replaced by a single, new test: Technology and Engineering Literacy.

“Without these tests, advocates for a richer civic education will not have any kind of test to use as leverage to get more civic education in the classrooms,” said John Hale, associate director at the Center for Civic Education.

. . . “Is it possible to have a responsible citizenry if we don’t teach them civics, history, and the humanities?” said Gary Nash, a professor of history education at the University of California Los Angeles. Postponing the exams, typically administered every four years, does not mean classroom education in the humanities will be cut. But the cuts indirectly say we can do without civics and U.S. history, Nash said.

Trading the humanities tests for technology tests is necessary to measure “the competitiveness of U.S. students in a science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)-focused world,” said David Driscoll, chair of the NAEP Governing Board, in a statement. “The [Technology and Engineering Literacy] assessment, along with the existing NAEP science and mathematics assessments, will help the nation know if we are making progress in the areas of STEM education.”

Nash agrees the U.S. needs more engineers and scientists: “But what are they without humanities under their belt?” he said.

. . . Students must be prepared “to think for themselves as independent citizens,” said Hale. “Civics and government is as generative as math; we are not born as great democratic citizens. We aren’t born knowing why everyone should have the right to political speech, even if it is intolerant speech.”

Consider the current events of the last few weeks, he said: the Supreme Court rulings on marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the National Security Administration’s data collection, and Congress debating immigration and student loan rates.

“Our leaders make decisions every day based on interpretations on the proper role of government; we have no way of knowing if these [decisions] are good or bad,” Hale continued. “We are supposed to be masters of our government, not servants of it.”

Cutting the civics tests indicates the government’s priorities, and priorities affect curriculum, Nash noted. He suggested danger for a country that must govern itself if children do not learn how.

A crisis in civic education?

Since the heyday of the 1960s and 70s apathy has increased and participation has decreased - especially among the young.

Here's a brief statement why that might be the case. Part of the reason may be a shift away from civic education and towards science and math, as well as a trend towards high stakes testing using multiple choice tests:

In the past, he notes, “Knowledge of our unique form of government and our civic responsibility was basic to any education, beginning as early as kindergarten” — a knowledge that “has fairly dramatically declined in importance in recent years.”

Reasons behind this “crisis point in civic education,” Wiseman says, include an increased emphasis on science and math, mechanically gradable multiple choice tests that negatively affect students’ abilities to verbalize the importance of civic knowledge and involvement, and “a new and developing phenomenon — a pronounced disdain for government in general.”

Once, he says, “Students would arrive on campus, clamoring for the chance to be involved with government, to work in political campaigns, and to intern in Washington for starvation wages.”

But, he writes, today’s students “have a decidedly negative view of government in general,” and “it is evident many of these negative opinions were formed around the dinner table at home.”

Finally, Wiseman says, “The display of animosity between the two entrenched political parties is obviously taking its toll…Students and budding young political enthusiasts are becoming less familiar with a calling to make government work, and are instead being fed a steady diet of the evils of compromise and of an overly-stated failure of government to accomplish anything of value.”

Several studies have indicated, he says, that all this “will lead to a drop in participation, and a dramatic decline, in the faith that all of us invest in our ‘one of a kind’ democracy.”

Are we discounting the role that civic education has played over the course of American history? If so, will this have an impact on the stability of governing institutions? Perhaps that's part of what is leading to current instability?

This is worth discussing in class.

Civic education for elementary schools

Just cause you're a college student doesn't mean you can't benefit from one organization's look at how the subject ought to be covered at the lower levels.

Click here for What is a Republican Government from the Center for Civic Education.

Their standards for K-12 can be found here.