Many of us are worried about America’s future. It’s never too late to ask how civics education is being addressed in our public schools.
Public schools don’t usually teach civics well. Have you ever wondered why it isn’t a priority?
The National Council for the Social Studies claims we have narrowed the curriculum over the years to mostly exclude civics instruction. They say this especially threatens the poor and nonwhite students who get less civics instruction than middle class and wealthy white students.
Put that together with the privatization forces which have been at work in public schools. School boards face budget cuts—defunding—and the sole push for students to be college ready. There appears to be less concern that students be good citizens.
In elementary school, high-stakes testing in reading and math pushes other subjects out of the curriculum.
In high school, students are driven to take Advanced Placement (AP) classes (a program that makes the College Board a lot of money). Students who qualify can sign up for the AP United States Government and Politics class if it’s offered. Honors and other classes might provide students a semester of civics if they are lucky.
But most students get limited exposure to civics.
With the realization that civics isn’t what it should be, the focus is now on civics curriculum that can be done by outside foundations and nonprofits.
They take over some of the funding…and the agenda. Schools become reliant on outside groups.
Consider the Civics Education Initiative and their “100 Facts Every High School Student Should Know.” They advertise that leaders must volunteer time and effort to pass their initiative.
Their leaders include Governors, Senators, prominent business leaders, and famous actors and journalists. I see no community leaders, educators, or parents on this list. We are invited to become part of their “grassroots initiative.”
Where are the well-prepared university teachers who understand how to create a top-notch civics class that is impartial yet ready to tackle debate?
Civics is much like character education. Teachers have to be careful about how the class is taught. Outside groups don’t always worry about that.
In the Chicago Tribune’s “Civics class required for high school graduation will push the envelope” students debate and tackle heavy subjects. Civics is apparently a requirement in Illinois.
But it is done through the McCormick Foundation and other nonprofit, business and civic groups. They pledge about $1 million annually for a couple of years of teacher training in civics.
The McCormicks are well-respected in Chicago, and you can’t fault them for making civics a priority.
But why do Chicago and the State of Illinois have to rely on them or other outside groups, to prepare teachers to teach civics?
Also, a few civics programs here and there funded by nonprofits and foundations by and for the wealthy, don’t solve the general problem of lacking civics education in America.
I think this demonstrates how privatization fails students in public schools.
Every public school deserves a good civics class as part of a whole curriculum. Classes, including a credentialed, unbiased civics teacher, capable of structuring debate, communicating with parents, and bringing in outside speakers to enhance class discussion, are what’s necessary.
It’s sad that a country such as ours pays little attention to civics education unless it can be privatized. Isn’t it finally time to turn that around?
Michigan requires “Three credits of social science: U.S. history and geography, World history and geography, and a half credit each of civics and economics”
Sadly, it does not seem to have done much good for our education, government, or business.
Hi Joshua. That seems like what I hear most schools do. I don’t think U.S. history and geography classes teach civics though do they? I think a half credit is not enough. Those fast classes can be pretty dull too. Thanks! Hope all is well!
I guess it depends on the class and the teacher. Many of us took and passed the AP Civics exam, even though the course was the standard one at our high school. More than 1/2 a semester would have been considered a waste to me, but apparently would have been beneficial to some. Considering the test we make immigrants pass to become U.S. Citizens, it is almost embarrassing that we get this important right to vote simply due to our birth location. Natural born Americans do not have to demonstrate that they have a modicum of civics knowledge to vote or even hold office. However, I suspect politicians prefer it that way. An informed voter cannot be as easily swayed.
Maybe if the UK and US had good universal Civics Education combined with a curriculum and teaching methods focused onto developing the cognitive and other abilities of all of our school students then we would not be faced with Brexit and you Trump. See
https://rogertitcombelearningmatters.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/piaget-kahneman-flynn-and-donald-trump/
Thank you, Roger. The intelligence issue is very controversial here and is difficult to write about. It influences special education too. The mindset, and grit talk are also hugely debatable. Certainly thinking positively and working hard is important, but how will that change overall intelligence? I think it depends on the individual. We need much more dialogue and research.
The question is: What is the fundamental reason/goal for public education? We have to look to the authorizing documents for public education to understand what should be the fundamental purpose of public education (from my forthcoming book):
What is that fundamental purpose and where can it usually be found? Is there even a fundamental purpose? To answer the last question first, it depends! Well, what does it depend on then? In answering that question we also answer the where question—the constitution of each state.
But there’s a catch, not every state gives a purpose for its authorization of public education. It’s a 50/50 split with 25 states not giving any purpose such as West Virginia’s authorization “The Legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of free schools.” (Article XII, Sec. 12-1) and 25 states providing a rationale.
The rationales can be divided into three types. Those that declare that the purpose of public education is to ensure that the state’s form of government will continue, such as South Dakota’s “The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools. . . .” (Article VIII § 1). Those whose fundamental purpose focuses on the individual and his/her rights such as Missouri’s “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools . . . .” (Article IX Sec. 1a) And those that are a combination of both. As it is, fifteen mainly focus on the benefits of public education to the individual citizen and the preservation of his/her rights, five on the benefit to the state and five that state both citizen and government benefits.
All together then, there are 25 states with no stated fundamental purpose, five with a purpose that extol the benefits of public education to the state, fifteen commending the benefits to the individual and five a combination of benefit to both state and individual, resulting in that 80% of those with a stated purpose having the benefits for the individual as primary. Is it possible, then, to discern a fundamental purpose of public education? Yes, I believe it can be discerned, first by starting with the fundamental purpose of government in this country as stated in each state’s constitution (sometimes as troublesome to recognize a stated purpose as that of public education). Since public education is a function of each state and not the federal government we must begin at the state level and determine what is the fundamental purpose of the state? [discussion of the fundamental purpose of the state follows leading to] . . .
. . . I propose, then, the following concise statement of the purpose of public education with which, hopefully, most in the United States could agree:
“The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
“The purpose of public education is to promote the welfare of the individual so that each person may savor the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the fruits of their own industry.”
You’ve got my vote here. Thanks, Duane. Didn’t know that about all the states.
When test-score reformers came flying out of the woodwork with NCLB more than a decade ago, their only concern was for math and literacy scores. Over the years, as a way to garner government money and government applause, our nation’s poorest schools have had no choice but to cut their curriculum down to the test-fanatic bone. Civics? Who needs Civics? Certainly not our nation’s poorest kids… http://www.ciedieaech.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/the-brittish-very-possibly-are-not-coming
Absolutely correct. Many believe NCLB was meant to destroy public schooling. I’m one of those and I think we can assume you are too Ciedie?
Thank you!