I was in Boston today, for the International
Society for Political Psychology‘s annual conference. I went to give a presentation
on The Civic Mission of Schools.
While there, I heard interesting papers on civic education and on the effects
of public deliberation. I’ve summarized the latter papers on the DD-Net
blog. Regarding civic education:
- Jon Miller of Northwestern
University Medical School presented a very important study that has followed 3,000
young Americans from 1987 to the present. Based on the data that his group has
collected, they are able to show what factors predict political engagement in
early adulthood. The courses taken in high school and students’ performance in
these courses do not seem to matter at all. This finding is somewhat at odds with
the Civic Mission of Schools, which claims that school-based civic education
works, at least when done well.
There’s a lot more to be said on this topic.
For example, Miller’s work doesn’t distinguish between the kind of civic education
that we would recommend and ordinary civic education. Furthermore, ordinary civic
education does seem to increase students’ knowledge, which can itself be
considered a good. Still, it should give us pause to note that there was no observed
connection between taking a government/civics class in high school and voting
later on.
- Arthur "Skip" Lupia of Michigan is writing a very
interesting book that applies insights from cognitive science to the question
of civic education. There are obstacles to learning about civics that are hard-wired,
he believes; and good teaching must address these obstacles. For example, when
two equally respectable people say opposite things—which often happens in
politics—we tend not to put either view into our long-term memories. I think
it is undeniable that biological constraints are relevant. But I would have to
be persuaded that the findings of cognitive science were very solid before I would
want them to influence policy.