James Murphy, a Dartmouth political scientist, wrote an article that was very critical of k-12 civic education in last fall’s Education Next. That journal then published a shortened version of my reply to Prof. Murphy in its winter issue. I don’t blame the editors for abridging my letter, but I’ve copied the whole thing here, because it summarizes the empirical evidence in favor of civic ed. (Click “continue reading” for the full letter.)

Continue reading →

(Written in Syracuse, NY:) ABC News/Weekly Reader recently polled Americans between the ages of 12 and 17 about their political views. This is from the ABCNews.com report:

“First, [the poll] finds less political discussion than you might expect: Fewer than half of teens, 47 percent, say they’ve talked about politics and the 2004 election with their parents. Hardly more, 54 percent of teens, have covered it in class at school.”

(By the way, if 47 percent of high schoolers really discussed politics, that is a higher rate than has ever been found among incoming college freshmen, going back to 1967. However, I don’t think that discussion is really more common this year than ever before; I just think this poll question generated a lot of affirmative answers.)

The ABC report continues:

Discussing politics “makes a big difference. Among kids who’ve discussed the election with their parents, more than three-quarters are interested in it, and even more ? nine in 10 ? plan on voting all or most of the time when they’re old enough. Kids who haven’t discussed the election with their parents are much less interested in it (46 percent) and less likely to plan to vote. Having class discussions about politics boosts interest and anticipated participation in elections as well ? but the effect is not quite as great as having discussed it at home.”

We wouldn’t claim, on the basis of this poll, that discussion “boosts” interest. Perhaps those who are already interested in politics are the ones who end up in classes where elections are discussed. However, other studies have shown that discussion of politics does increase political interest; this poll lends that hypothesis some additional support.

The winter issue of the National Civic Review contains an article by me on The Civic Mission of Schools. It’s a short summary of the major arguments about civic education, meant for people who are into good government, community development, and civic renewal.

Social studies education is a battleground in the Culture Wars, with some critics charging that schools teach subversive and anti-American versions of history, while others accuse mainstream teachers of papering over injustice. Almost never is this debate anchored in any empirical evidence about what actually occurs in typical classrooms. Instead, critics site news stories about radical or reactionary teachers in particular schools, or they quote controversial education professors and assume that average teachers think the same way.

Today, CIRCLE and the Council for Excellence in Government released some actual poll results. When 15-25-year-olds were asked to choose one or two themes that were emphasized the most in middle and high school classes, they answered as follows:

45% — The Constitution or the US system of government and how it works

30% — Great American heroes and the virtues of the American system of government

25% — Wars and military battles

11% — Problems facing the country today

9% — Racism and other forms of injustice in the American system

5% — Other, all of the above, or don?t know

I’m a fairly neutral party in this debate; besides, I don’t think that empirical data can ever settle an argument about what themes should be emphasized in social studies. However, I challenge conservative critics to stop attacking schools for teaching a leftist version of history, because there’s no evidence that this is happening. Leftist critics have more to complain about.

There’s a lot more information, including detailed statistical analysis, here.

The NAEP, often called the “Nation’s Report Card,” is a voluntary, federally-funded assessment of students’ progress in a field. Those who support the Civic Mission of Schools agenda favor a big expansion of the NAEP Civics Assessment. We want the Civics NAEP to be given every three years with separate representative samples in as many states as possible. We have argued that this is an important way to hold states–but not individual kids–accountable for civic outcomes. Furthermore, we believe that the NAEP civics assessment is a good instrument.

Now we learn that the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) has commissioned a report on the 12th grade NAEP, which will be received and publicized on March 5. We are told that this report will call for the abolition of all 12th-grade NAEPs other than reading, math, and science. This decision would represent a giant step away from our goal, at least at the federal level. On the other hand, if we can organize to block the change, we may gain some momentum and visibility. I think this is a crucial test.

It’s also a reminder of our fundamental goal. NABG is not contemplating the end of the NAEP Civics Assessment because it is a flawed instrument. Rather, they simply do not believe in the importance of schools’ civic mission. They are asking all fields other than reading, math, and science to justify themselves. They are putting us all in a position where we will have to compete for survival: civics against history; civics and history against the arts. We would not face this highly unpleasant situation if people believed that schools have a civic mission.