(Washington, DC) Yesterday, I and others spoke at the Brookings Institution on “Teaching America: The Case for Civic Education.” (Summary and audio here.) Today, the White House will host a conference entitled “For Democracy’s Future: Education Reclaims Our Civic Mission.” At that event, Secretary Duncan will speak “on connecting college, career and citizenship,” and a report will be released entitled “A Crucible Moment: College Learning & Democracy’s Future.” The White House conference can be viewed live at www.whitehouse.gov/live.

Here’s my current “elevator speech” about civics:

Many people bemoan the poor state of students’ knowledge of the US Constitution and political system and call for course requirements and tests. That’s what “strengthening civics” means to them.

But students actually don’t do badly on basic questions related to the Constitution and the US political system–probably because almost all of them are already required to study those topics, and many face high-stakes tests. (I am in Washington to help plan the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in civics, and my colleagues who are middle-school teachers are confident that their 8th graders know all about Marbury v Madison, Brown v Board, and Tinker v US–although maybe not New York Times v. Sullivan.)

In any case, CIRCLE has found no impact of course requirements or mandatory tests on what students know about the constitution and the US political system. So demanding more courses and tests is beside the point. The real problem is that kids don’t learn how to deliberate with people who disagree with them and then plan responsible, productive, collaborative voluntary action on current civic issues. Deliberation used to be taught in the prevalent course known as “Problems of Democracy,” but the “Problems” course was cut in most states after 1970. (Congratulations to Hawaii for putting it back recently, under the name “Participating in Democracy.”)

To put deliberation-plus-civic-action back in the curriculum would be tough. It would require standards focused more on deliberative skills and civic engagement than on abstract political science. States would have to change course requirements to encourage classes that involve moderated discussions of current events and civic activities. Individual, paper-and-pencil tests would have to be replaced by assessments of how students talk and work in groups. (Computer simulations are promising for that purpose.) Finally, teachers would need opportunities to learn how to moderate deliberations and think about civic action.

In one sense, adding a single new course seems like no big deal. But it would require substantial shifts in policies and resources and a new understanding of what’s important about citizenship.