I spoke today at the Cesar

Chavez Public Charter School for Public Policy, which is a wonderful

school that I have visited before. It’s a crowded warren of rooms on an

upstairs floor of a former industrial building, where kids are intensely

involved in regular classes, public-service internships, and the study

of public policy. If we are going to have broad-based, creative, informed

leadership in the District of Columbia (and other troubled cities), then

experiments like Chavez must work. It seems quite clear that the school

is successful at present—one hundred percent of its graduates

attend college, and all seem inspired to work on social problems. There

are, however, the usual questions about whether the Chavez model is replicable,

or whether it depends on remarkably charismatic and dedicated leadership.

Today, I was sent this

article on the Internet commons by its author, a former president

of the American Library Association. It seems to be an important contribution.

I was interviewed over the weekend by a group called Civic Honors.

The interview is posted here.

It was an opportunity to say why I personally believe in civic engagement.

I said:

My philosophical position would be something like this: (1) Volunteerism

is an inadequate form of civic engagement, because it replaces political

action with service, which does not address the root cause of problems

or tap the political capacities of the volunteers. (2) Civic engagement

should be cultivated for two reasons. First, if we don’t deliberately

teach it, the least advantaged among us will be the first to disengage,

leading to political inequality later on. Second, civic participation

is a good human activity. It is not the only or highest good activity:

theoretical reflection, spiritual contemplation, appreciation of nature,

creation of art, and care for family members are some of the other activities

that are inherently good. All of these ends or projects are preferable

to the forms of life that are more frequently advertised to young people:

consumerism, athletics, and sexual gratification. Moreover, in public

schools, we cannot teach activities connected to spirituality or care

for family. Therefore, we ought to teach civic engagement (along with

art and science) so that it is an option available to young people.

Today was finally the big release of The

Civic Mission of Schools. (I can finally link to the text of this

report, which had been embargoed until today.) John Bridgeland, Advisor

to the President and Director of USA Freedom Corps, made a very nice speech

in formally "receiving" it for the press. About 150 people were

present for the lunch/launch, including Vartan Gregorian, who spoke eloquently,

and many authors and endorsers (and friends in the civic engagement world).

I thought it went very well—at any rate, I’m relieved that it’s done.

My day began with a nice breakfast at a fancy downtown hotel, talking

to a foundation program officer about a project that he is planning. I

camped out in the lobby to do some work, and then Metro’d to the Cesar

Chavez Charter High School for Public Policy. It seems like fun to go

there. Two hundred kids are tightly packed into improvised classrooms

in a former office building. There’s a sense that they are helping to

create something idiosyncratic and important. Students participate heavily

in planning the service projects that are central to the curriculum, so

their voice matters. At the same time, discipline is strict: if you arrive

one second late, you go straight to detention. As we walked through the

halls, the principal had something specific to say to practically every

kid she met: "We set up SAT classes for you. Oh, you can’t do them

because you’re in the Corcoran art program. OK, we’ll figure out an alternative."

The neighborhood, near U Street, is full of charter schools—I suspect

because the rent is fairly low and Metro connections are good. It’s a

transitional neighborhood, traditionally African American and working

class, but now with quite a few White yuppies. I was thinking about the

problems and advantages of gentrification when I passed workers restoring

a beautiful row house. Outside the next-door house, an African American

woman stood and shouted at them: "White man already has everything!"

As an illustration, it was too perfect.

I’ve been writing my proposal for an innovative high school civics textbook.

I’m tentatively calling it Civics for Citizens. Unlike any competing

text, it will combine challenging academic content with exercises and

materials designed to help students experience civic life through discussions

and community service. Furthermore, in the part devoted to academic instruction,

Civics for Citizens will present an unusual selection of topics.

Many high school civics and government texts contain difficult and detailed

information about the structure and process of government, but they never

introduce students to basic concepts from social theory, philosophy, and

economics—terms such as "externality," "utilitarianism,"

and "free rider." Yet these are the most influential ideas in

policy debates among researchers, regulators, and legislators. If young

citizens never learn these ideas, then they cannot participate in (or

even follow) crucial debates and must leave the outcomes to elites.

Consider the concept of an "externality," which seems at first

glance to be too technical for a civics class. Sometimes, a voluntary

exchange among free individuals creates harms for others who did not agree

to the deal. For instance, companies produce goods that their customers

willingly buy, but they also generate pollution that affects everyone.

This is an example of an externality. If you think that externalities

are serious problems, then you may want the government to interfere to

mitigate the damage. On the other hand, if you think that externalities

are mostly not serious problems—or that the burdens of regulation

are worse—then you may want less government interference. The debate

about how much the government should regulate is perhaps the central political

argument in modern times, and it rests on conflicting ideas about externalities.

As you go through life, your personal experiences and your understanding

of current events may help you to decide what you think about externalities

and regulations. But first you need to understand the underlying concepts.