{"id":4276,"date":"2003-08-29T12:02:46","date_gmt":"2003-08-29T12:02:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=4276"},"modified":"2003-08-29T12:02:46","modified_gmt":"2003-08-29T12:02:46","slug":"a-conservative-critique-of-civics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=4276","title":{"rendered":"a conservative critique of civics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here are some thoughts prompted by Where<\/p>\n

Did Social Studies Go Wrong?<\/a>, a new report from the Thomas B. Fordham<\/p>\n

Foundation (edited by James Leming, Lucien Ellington and Kathleen Porter<\/p>\n

and with an introduction by Chester E. Finn, Jr.). This is a conservative<\/p>\n

alternative to The Civic<\/p>\n

Mission of Schools<\/a>, the joint CIRCLE\/Carnegie Corporation report<\/p>\n

on social studies and civic education released earlier this year.<\/p>\n

The rhetoric of the Fordham Foundation report is angry. Chester Finn<\/p>\n

says that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”; that<\/p>\n

the response of the “education establishment” to Sept. 11<\/p>\n

was “despicable”; that the “keys of Rome are being<\/p>\n

turned over to the Goths and Huns.” However, I think it’s<\/p>\n

worth looking beyond these fighting words to the content of the report,<\/p>\n

which differs interestingly (but not completely) from the content of<\/p>\n

The Civic Mission of Schools.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Civic Mission of Schools <\/em>identifies a set of facts, behaviors,<\/p>\n

and attitudes that students should obtain by 12th grade. It then lists<\/p>\n

six approaches that seem to produce those outcomes. The main evidence<\/p>\n

consists of aggregate statistics comparing students who have experienced<\/p>\n

the recommended approaches with those who have not. Only one of the<\/p>\n

approaches is formal instruction in history, government, and civics.<\/p>\n

The Civic Mission <\/em>does not go into great detail about what<\/p>\n

content should be taught in social studies classes, although it does<\/p>\n

stress the importance of factual knowledge and the need to connect it<\/p>\n

to concrete actions. The Report calls for more research on pedagogy<\/p>\n

and content.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong? <\/em>is almost<\/p>\n

entirely concerned with what teachers are telling students in formal<\/p>\n

history and government classes. Young people are repeatedly described<\/p>\n

as woefully ignorant, and the blame is ascribed to pedagogical methods<\/p>\n

and content selection in formal classes.<\/p>\n

The authors focus on content and pedagogy for two reasons. First,<\/p>\n

they believe that what teachers say matters a great deal. Mark C. Schug<\/p>\n

contributes a chapter endorsing “teacher-centered instruction”<\/p>\n

as the most effective pedagogy. Perhaps the authors do not think that<\/p>\n

the other approaches have much effect at all. James S. Lemming argues<\/p>\n

that discussion of controversial issues is developmentally inappropriate<\/p>\n

for k-12 students, which is why many do not participate and those who<\/p>\n

do talk don’t really deliberate (p. 138). Several contributors<\/p>\n

disparage service-learning. There is no mention whatsoever of extracurricular<\/p>\n

activities or student participation in school governance.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the authors’ emphasize content and pedagogy because<\/p>\n

of their extreme dismay at some of the things that they believe students<\/p>\n

are being told in formal classes. “Why is social studies in such<\/p>\n

deep trouble? The contributors believe one reason is the dominant belief<\/p>\n

systems of the social studies education professoriate who train future<\/p>\n

teachers. [Thus] in this book we exclusively focus upon, to use E.D.<\/p>\n

Hirsch’s phrase, the ‘thought world’ of social studies<\/p>\n

leaders’” (pp. i-ii). In practice, this means that the authors<\/p>\n

quote textbooks on pedagogy; textbooks used in k-12 classes; and statements<\/p>\n

of official groups such as the NEA, NCATE, and NCSS. These quotations<\/p>\n

are supposed to prove that education professors and other experts favor<\/p>\n

relativism, skepticism about all forms of truth, anti-Americanism, and<\/p>\n

other objectionable doctrines. Education schools turn out teachers with<\/p>\n

little knowledge and poor values; teachers impart what they<\/em><\/p>\n

were told to their students; and students score badly on tests such<\/p>\n

as the NAEP Civics Assessment. “Garbage In, Garbage Out”<\/p>\n

is the title of chapter 6 and the theme of the whole volume.<\/p>\n

Empirically, there are two weaknesses to this argument. First, I am<\/p>\n

not at all convinced that the depiction of education experts (through<\/p>\n

selective quotations) is fair or complete. For instance, no author mentions<\/p>\n

Magruder’s American Government<\/em>, which claims an outright<\/p>\n

majority of the high school market. Unlike the textbooks that the authors<\/p>\n

do quote, Magruder’s <\/em>is quite congenial to their views,<\/p>\n

so it would rhetorically inconvenient to mention it.<\/p>\n

An example of pretty tendentious criticism is Jonathan Burack’s<\/p>\n

reading of The La Pietra Report <\/em>(by Thomas Bender and other<\/p>\n

historians). He quotes a passage about the dangers of nationalism that<\/p>\n

he calls “unobjectionable” in itself (p. 46). But, he says,<\/p>\n

“the problems the La Pietra <\/em>project claims to address<\/p>\n

do not appear to be all that significant. This suggests that other agendas<\/p>\n

may be at work. On the matter of American exceptionalism, for instance,<\/p>\n

is the aim to temper uncritical pro-American bias, or is it to instill<\/p>\n

indifference to any patriotic appeal at all, no matter how well founded?”<\/p>\n

The answer is probably the former. In any case, one could easily apply<\/p>\n

Burack’s interpretive methods to his own article. One would quote<\/p>\n

selectively, argue that the problems he addresses are “not all<\/p>\n

that significant,” and darkly allege that “other agendas<\/p>\n

may be at work.”<\/p>\n

Second, there is not much about what teachers<\/em> say and do in<\/p>\n

their classrooms. Schug thinks that real teachers (those who survive<\/p>\n

their first-year of hazing by students) ignore what they were taught<\/p>\n

in education schools (p. 101). Ellington and Eaton cite evidence that<\/p>\n

teachers are considerably more conservative than education professors<\/p>\n

(p. 72). Burack thinks that the relativism preached by education experts<\/p>\n

may be “triggering an understandable, if in some cases equally<\/p>\n

mindless, reaction against it” (p. 41). Nevertheless, most contributors<\/p>\n

assume that education professors are causally responsible for poor student<\/p>\n

outcomes. If teachers pay little attention to their professors, then<\/p>\n

this cannot be true.<\/p>\n

Each contributor to Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?”<\/em><\/p>\n

ends with recommendations, but I think they can be roughly summarized<\/p>\n

as follows: History is the core subject matter. Teachers are responsible<\/p>\n

for teaching it, and there are limits to student-centered, experiential<\/p>\n

approaches. American history should be taught “warts-and-all,”<\/p>\n

but most current textbooks are far too critical about American institutions.<\/p>\n

(Several authors emphasize that the United States is the single best<\/p>\n

polity in history; see, for instance, p. 27.) The scope and sequence<\/p>\n

of social studies education is misconceived, because students do not<\/p>\n

have to start with their own neighborhoods and work outward (p. 115).<\/p>\n

Learning about heroes and struggles from the past is inspiring at any<\/p>\n

age. Teachers must be careful not to try to reform society through social<\/p>\n

studies education, but they should impart rigorous knowledge of the<\/p>\n

past.<\/p>\n

On his website, Finn gave The Civic Mission of Schools<\/em> a<\/p>\n

“C+.” Given his explanation of poor student outcomes (he<\/p>\n

blames groups like the NEA and NCSS), it would have been awkward for<\/p>\n

him to give the report an “A.” But he couldn’t give<\/p>\n

it an “F,” either, because there are too many points of<\/p>\n

common ground. In particular:<\/p>\n

• There is not a whiff of relativism in the Civic Mission<\/p>\n

of Schools<\/em>, which emphasizes the importance of factual knowledge<\/p>\n

and “moral and civic virtues.” We do say that “competent<\/p>\n

and responsible citizens” are “tolerant of ambiguity and<\/p>\n

resist simplistic answers to complex questions”; but this does<\/p>\n

not imply skepticism or relativism. Diane Ravitch says something quite<\/p>\n

similar: “teachers and textbooks [must] recognize the possibility<\/p>\n

of fallibility and uncertainty” (p. 5). <\/p>\n

• Finn thinks that one problem with social studies is the emphasis<\/p>\n

on testing in reading, writing, and math. He argues that “what<\/p>\n

gets tested is what gets taught,” and therefore “NCLB is<\/p>\n

beginning to have deleterious effects” on civics. This is also<\/p>\n

a theme in the Civic Mission.<\/em><\/p>\n

• J. Martin Rochester cites the same evidence of student disengagement<\/p>\n

that we cite (e.g., declining turnout), and endorses Kids Voting because<\/p>\n

of its thoughtful combination of knowledge and experience (p. 28).<\/p>\n

• I personally share Burack’s criticism of superficial multiculturalism<\/p>\n

that doesn’t go into depth on any culture or ever address the<\/p>\n

negative aspects of cultures other than our own (p. 50).<\/p>\n

In short, the two reports are not worlds apart, although there are<\/p>\n

significant differences, and several contributors to the Fordham report<\/p>\n

bitterly criticize the very groups that signed the Civic Mission.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here are some thoughts prompted by Where Did Social Studies Go Wrong?, a new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (edited by James Leming, Lucien Ellington and Kathleen Porter and with an introduction by Chester E. Finn, Jr.). This is a conservative alternative to The Civic Mission of Schools, the joint CIRCLE\/Carnegie Corporation report […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocating-civic-education"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}