Category Archives: advocating civic education

free expression in our schools

(Washington, DC) This is an audio podcast of me talking with Frank LoMonte, Executive Director of The Student Press Law Center, who defends free expression in schools. Frank and I discussed the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge and its recent report “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement.” The report is relevant to the First Amendment concerns of the Student Press Law Center because it emphasizes “free expression and civil deliberation” (p. 24-25) as essential aspects of civic education:

Young people need the space and encouragement to form and refine their own positions on political issues, even if their views happen to be controversial. Adults, schools, political officials, and youth themselves must adopt a generally tolerant and welcoming attitude toward this process of developing and expressing a political identity.

In the National Youth Survey, discussions of current issues predicted greater electoral engagement. We also find that when parents encouraged their adolescent children to express opinions and disagreements, these young people had higher electoral engagement, political knowledge, and informed voting in 2012. Teachers in our Teacher Survey put a high priority on civic discussion.

Just as young people must be free to adopt and express their own views, they must also be taught and expected to interact with peers and older citizens in ways that involve genuinely understanding alternative views, learning from these discussions, and collaborating on common goals.

In the podcast, Frank and I discuss the serious obstacles to this kind of education–unhelpful tests and standards, parental resistance, a caustic media environment–and how to overcome them.

talking about talking about controversial issues, on talk radio

This is the audio of my conversation yesterday with John Gambling, a self-described moderate conservative radio host on WOR in New York City. Gambling is concerned about civic education in schools, by which he primarily means teaching students to understand and appreciate the Constitution. I said that students must also learn to discuss current issues with civility and good information. He seemed to agree on the grounds that (1) he is a civil and substantive person who talks about issues on the air, and (2) political correctness is at fault for blocking good conversations in schools.

I would agree that Gambling is a good participant in public debate, even though he and I would probably vote for different candidates and policies in many cases. One way you can tell is that Gambling invites a wide range of guests onto his show and lets them talk, in marked contrast to people like Rush Limbaugh, who dominate with their own views.

I also share his concern about political correctness, as long as we define that right. According to CIRCLE’s recent survey for the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge , about one quarter of high school American government teachers believe that parents would object if political issues were discussed in their classes. That resistance has a chilling effect, the teachers told it. It discourages them from talking about current events.

Some of the pushback probably comes from conservative parents who don’t want their kids talking about sex or race, or who worry that teachers (unionized public employees) may expose their children to views they disagree with. But the resistance also comes from the left. I have talked to parents in northeastern urban districts–people I am sure vote liberal–who explicitly resist discussions of controversial current issues in their kids’ schools. I think John Gambling and I agreed that this is wrong.

talking about the Pledge of Allegiance on “Tell Me More”

On NPR’s “Tell Me More” recently, I discussed the Pledge of Allegiance with host Michel Martin and reporter Mary Plummer from KPCC in Pasadena. At one point, Martin asked me whether I would replace the Pledge with something “better.” I replied that I am not necessarily against it, “but I do think there is something more important, which is actually to have a conversation, an appreciative conversation but a thoughtful conversation, about what ‘liberty and justice for all’ means–to actually take some of those words like ‘liberty’ and ‘justice,’ which are very complicated and controversial, and talk about them and understand them.”

All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement

1377110_10151727004580748_1674310912_n(Washington, DC) Here I am at the National Press Club, releasing the report of the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge, entitled “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement.”

Here is the text of our press release:

While the federal government is shut down, young people across America are required to study our system of government and how a bill becomes a law. Successful civic education is both more difficult and more important when Congress and other elected officials set such poor examples. Today, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE)—the nationally recognized research center based at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service—released a groundbreaking report on how to educate young Americans for political participation in a time of deep polarization.

The new report, released this morning at a Newsmaker event hosted by the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., was written by the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge and is entitled, “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement.” The report provides recommendations for educators, parents, and national, state and local policymakers on how to engage American youth.

The Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge is a distinguished, bipartisan group of scholars convened by CIRCLE to investigate exclusive data collected during and after the 2012 elections on issues such as civic knowledge, voting behavior, and the educational experiences of Americans ages 25 and under—a crucial constituency in electoral politics. The report is based, in part, on data collected for the Commission from more than 6,000 young adults and 720 high school civics or government teachers, and an analysis of all states’ voting and education laws. The research was funded by the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, Robert R. McCormick Foundation, W.T. Grant Foundation, Spencer Foundation, and Youth Engagement Fund.

“Teachers face an inhospitable climate for civics: tests and standards that do not reward discussing current events, considerable resistance from parents to anything touching politics, and a national political climate that alienates young people from public life,” said Peter Levine, director of CIRCLE. “The research for this new report demonstrates the urgency of better civic education in schools and community-based organizations that include youth.”

Some highlights of the report’s findings released today include:

  •     Current levels of knowledgeable engagement by America’s youth remain too low. Less than half of young Americans vote, even in presidential elections, and just 10 percent of Americans between 18 and 24 met a standard of “informed engagement” in the 2012 presidential election cycle.
  •     Opportunities for civic learning and engagement are highly unequal. White, wealthy students are four to six times as likely as Hispanic or Black students from low-income households to exceed the “proficient” level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in civics. Only 7 percent of students whose parents didn’t graduate from high school and who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch reached “proficient.”
  •     Civic education is increasingly viewed as controversial by the public. A quarter (24.8 percent) of the teachers surveyed by the Commission thought that parents or other adults in their community would object if politics was discussed in their course—even though they were asked about a course on government or civics taught during a presidential election year.
  •     Although highly controversial, voting laws have only small effects. Photo ID laws seemed to lower voting for young people who have not attended college. Same Day Voter Registration modestly, but reliably, boosts youth turnout. The overall effects of these laws are small compared to the larger challenges to engaging youth in democracy.

“Research shows that civics education works. Discussing controversial issues, engaging in service learning if it involves discussion of “root causes,” being contacted by parties and campaigns, and participating in extracurricular groups all predict good civic outcomes for students,” said Trey Grayson, former Kentucky Secretary of State (R-KY), Director of the Harvard Institute of Politics and member of CIRCLE’s Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge. “As a teacher we surveyed stated, civic education ‘is essential if we are to continue as a free democratic society’.”

“All young Americans should be informed and responsibly involved in politics and civic life. And engaging the next generation is the best long-term solution to problems of polarization, incivility, and dysfunction in national politics,” said Levine.

To break current patterns, the report recommends policymakers must embrace innovative and collaborative approaches to civic education. Examples of recommendations from the report include:

  •     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.
  •     Policies that support teachers’ obligation to include discussions of current, controversial political issues in the curriculum. Assigning students to read and debate news in class and encouraging them to discuss with their parents and other adults who are important in their lives.
  •     State standards for civics that focus on developing advanced civic skills, such as deliberation and collaboration, rather than memorizing facts.
  •     Badges for excellence in civics. These portable, online certificates would demonstrate advanced civic skills, knowledge, and actual contributions.

Both a full list of the commission’s members and additional, detailed information about the commission, its mission and focus can be found here.

###

CIRCLE (http://www.civicyouth.org) is a nonpartisan, independent, academic research center that studies young people in politics and presents detailed data on young voters in all 50 states. CIRCLE is part of the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University.

The Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service (http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/) is a national leader whose model and research are setting the standard for higher education’s role in civic engagement education. Serving every school of Tufts University, Tisch College creates an enduring culture that prepares students to be lifelong active citizens.

Tufts University (http://www.tufts.edu/), located on three Massachusetts campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville and Grafton, and in Talloires, France, is recognized as one of the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs across the university’s schools is widely encouraged.

the case for active citizenship when government fails us

In Stockton, CA, columnist Mike Fitzgerald argues that his city needs civic literacy to address its dire economic and political condition:

For two decades, Stockton’s leaders overpaid public employees, subsidized sprawl and racked up staggering debt.

Few objected.

When the crisis hit, a reform council hired a competent city manager. Over the ensuing three years, leaders halted past excesses and put in place fiscal reforms.

But, dismayingly, many citizens seemed unable to distinguish between the reform council and the hacks of the past. They voted almost all reformers out of office.

A surreal procession of angry citizens came before the council to denounce it.

“There are reasons to be angry,” Levine said. “But a successful citizen needs to be able to make distinctions. To figure out who in charge is bad and who is good. And it’s very disempowering if you’re so distrustful that you can’t identify an ally.”

Inability to discern friend from foe explains the blanket anger. It’s a primal scream, as opposed to literate civic discourse.

Angry, unwitting citizens are part of an incompetence loop. They fail to recognize good service; they pelt all councils with hostility; which repels good leaders; which leaves Bozos; who govern poorly; thus further disaffecting the masses.

For some causes of civic illiteracy, such as poverty, there are no easy solutions. A couple obvious remedies are to strengthen literacy programs and civics classes.

Meanwhile, in the University of Florida’s student newspaper, The Alligator, I challenge students to get more involved in civic reform:

… We face profound problems the government isn’t addressing — persistent unemployment, climate change, violence and mass incarceration and the slow desertion of our great industrial cities, to name just a few.

Although we should expect more from the government and our political leaders, they cannot solve these problems on their own. People can solve even the most difficult problems if they are organized and active. That is not a wish — it is a finding of extensive research. But where are we going to get more active and responsible citizens?