I’m one of about 200 people—mostly

corporate executives—who signed an open letter to President Bush that’s printed

as a full-page ad in today’s New York Times. It reads, in part: "AmeriCorps

programs are closing. Young people who want to serve their country are being turned

away. Communities, schools and children are losing their AmeriCorps mentors, tutors,

teachers and builders . . . Please save these essential AmeriCorps programs that

have done so much good for our communities." (I can’t find a link to the

Times ad, but the Washington Post has a

story about it.)

Last Friday, the Senate passed, by a 90-0 vote, the "American

History and Civics Education Act” (S. 504), that had been introduced

by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). The bill would create summer institutes for

k-12 teachers in college settings, where they would study civics and history.

It would give some high school juniors and seniors the opportunity to attend a

different set of summer academies; and it would organize a National Alliance of

Teachers of History and Civics, for the sharing of information and ideas.

Senator

Alexander said, “Civics is being dropped from many school curricula. More

than half the states have no requirement for a course in American government.

And American history has been watered down, textbooks are dull, and their pages

feature victims and diminish heroes. Because of politically correct attitudes

from the left and right, teachers are afraid to teach the great controversies

and struggles that are the essence of American history.”

I heartily

agree and think that Alexander’s points can be substantiated with solid evidence.

Partly as a result of the way we teach (or fail to teach) civics, the actual participation

of young people in politics and civic life is dropping, and the least advantaged

are the most often left out.

Many people in the "civic-ed" world

are now calling for a movement to revese these trends, using the Civic

Mission of Schools report as the blueprint. This movement or campaign would

have to address fundamental problems that go well beyond what Senator Alexander

mentioned. Above all, social studies are being squeezed out of the curriculum,

especially in grades 1-8, because of budget cuts and an emphasis on testing in

reading and math. S. 504 has no direct bearing on these trends. It deals with

the in-service education of teachers—a worthy goal, if not a crucial one.

But S. 504 could have an indirect positive effect if the participating

k-12 teachers and their college instructors become a national network of advocates

for civic education. Here’s hoping it passes the House and gets adequately funded.

p>I’m still at the Education Commission of

the States in Denver, discussing state standards in civics. One distinguished

colleague argued that no educational reform really succeeds unless a state

has all of the following elements in place: appropriate standards,

tests, courses, textbooks, funding, and professional development opportunities.

(It can also be useful to have appropriate admissions requirements at

the state university.) Unfortunately, all the elements of an effective

civics program are missing in most states today. This is a serious matter,

for young people are being inadequately prepared to participate in politics

in civic life, and consequently many are not involved at all. (We make

this general argument in The

Civic Mission of Schools report.)

I’m in Denver, at the Education Commission

of the States, talking about state standards in civics and social

studies. The topic is what students should know, think, feel, and

do about politics and civil society. The group is very well informed and

represents all the relevant disciplines and professions. So far, there

have been few (if any) broad and systematic disagreements. Most experts

feel some tension about standards, accountability, and testing. They ask

themselves: are these things inherently harmful, since they reduce schools’

capacity to operate democratically, or do we need good standards and tests

to encourage civics? There was also a very interesting discussion that

pitted academics (including me) against a school superintendent of a fairly

major school system. The academics worry that schools are suppressing

discussion of controversial political issues. The superintendent told

horror stories about teachers who proselytize for various fringe political

causes. I certainly could see his point about the risks—both moral

and political—of encouraging teachers to bring politics into the

classroom. On the other hand, if we prevent teachers from advocating for

political causes, then there is a risk that students will never meet any

adults who are politically active and articulate.

Today was the White

House Forum on American History, Civics, and Service, a big event

in my field. Our Civic

Mission of Schools report was distributed to all 250 of the White

House’s guests and received a lot of attention.

The Forum exemplified official Washington. The President delivered

an especially prepared greeting from a gigantic video screen. Much was

made of his new initiative to support history teaching. The First Lady

and Lynne Cheney, guarded visibly by the Secret Service, made speeches;

and everyone stood each time one of these women took the podium. (Some

of the sanctity of high executive office transfers to spouses, apparently.)

Patriotic video montages of American history were displayed on the screen.

A huge reproduction of a manuscript copy of the Constitution was the backdrop

all day. Teenagers were paraded (silently) on stage and bedecked with

medals—quite literally. Speakers were introduced with long recitals

of their achievements; there was also much thanks to funders and assembled

dignataries. Almost all the speakers quoted at least one framer of the

Constitution (often deploying little-known and highly relevant quotes—to

their credit). Martin Luther King Jr. was also cited widely; and many

sentimental stories were told about disadvantaged children. No one mentioned

the name of a political party or a major ideology, lest the spirit of

nonpartisanship be disturbed. There was general air of congratulation,

directed at the people and organizations in the room and at America itself—with

one exception: at least half the speakers wagged their fingers at young

Americans today for their shocking ignorance of history.

My academic training makes me want to rebel against this kind of show.

I want to ask: What do we know about the trends in historical knowledge

over time? What do we know about the factors that make historical education

successful? What is the impact of a historical education, or of historical

knowledge, on people over their lifetimes? What will the impact of the

new presidential initiative be? (At $100 million over three years, it

represents a vanishingly small commitment in the context of the federal

budget.) Since there are competing grand narratives of American history,

how do we know which one is more correct? Is Howard Zinn’s story of greed

and violence (which was explicitly criticized during the session) false?

Is it less valid than the "moderate triumphalist" narrative

that one speaker recommended as an alternative? What are the effects of

such stories on youth development?

Notwithstanding all these questions and doubts, I recognize that public

institutions are not academic seminars. Mutual praise is oil that probably

has to be poured periodically over civil society. Vague statements of

commitment from the President of the United States are not empty; they

are useful ammunition in struggles at the local level. And leaders are

entitled to make a big deal about $100 million programs that they have

proposed. You would have to be a kind of political puritan to expect them

not to capitalize on the symbolism of such initiatives. It doesn’t only

take truth and critical debate to make large institutions run; they also

need symbolism, ritual, and even etiquette. Washington does these things

well.