Educating for Citizenship

It may seem hard to believe, but until fairly recently in our history, the main purpose of public education was preparing the next generation for the responsibilities of citizenship. In fact, initially, citizenship was the entire point of a public education.  When, in the 1740s, Ben Franklin first proposed the creation of public schools in Pennsylvania, it was to the end of “creating citizens who could make wise political decisions.”

For many years, citizenship education was prominently acknowledged as a core part of the State College Area School District’s mission. “A responsible and involved citizen” was listed at the very top of the aspirational Ten Characteristics of a State High Graduate. That list, by the way, also included attributes such as respect for self and others, personal financial acumen, environmental stewardship, participation in the arts, and competence with technology. In other words, a well-rounded person.

But in recent years, the national conversation on education has focused almost entirely on preparing students for success in the workforce. While that is important, the ability to make a living at something one enjoys is only one component of being a successful citizen. In fact, the core skills of citizenship – the ability to think critically, to communicate clearly and to collaborate with others - are precisely the skills most sought after by employers in the modern economy. (By the way, those skills are also on that list of ‘ten characteristics’.)

Furthermore, citizenship education, done well, ought not to be one just more thing that our schools ‘have to do’.  Rather, the development of these skills should be embedded into the very fabric of how our schools operate. At the earliest age possible our students should be given every opportunity to take ownership of their education and to be active participants in creating a school and classroom environment that is conducive to quality learning.

Just as education is moving away from the rote memorization of facts that can be instantaneously ‘Googled’, citizenship education should be less about memorizing the names and dates of dead presidents, and more about developing the civic skills students will need and use for the rest of their lives. As David Brooks said recently in the NY Times, “Politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balancing valid but competing ideas and interests.”

I have long argued that one explanation for our current political inefficacy, particularly at the national and state levels, is that many of our current politicians never had the opportunity to develop those skills. Because schools began to shy away from controversy back in the 1970s, few modern politicians have had the experience of wrestling with a controversial issue in a high school social studies class. Certainly few had the experience of working with others to impact their school environment. (The rules were handed down from the teacher in the front of the room, and that was that.) But we can do better. 

Finally – my apologies for the hyperbole – I firmly believe that the future of the American experiment of democracy depends on whether we do. 

This sounds reasonable, but it's not

re: Arizona Students to Take Required Civics Test in 8th Grade

How so, you ask? Let me count the ways.

First, is Arizona suggesting that the typical 14-year-old who has passed their civics exam is now prepared to vote and be an active participant in a democratic society?  If not, what exactly does this civics test measure?

Almost certainly, this test measures a student’s ability to memorize a list of dates (1776, 1860, 1941…) names (the usual suspects: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln), and the three branches of government - almost all of which can be looked up on the internet in a matter of minutes.

Second, if we were to assume for a moment that this test actually measures something useful - a bit of a leap, I know, but bear with me - what Arizona appears to be saying is that it’s perfectly ok for their students to memorize this stuff, and then forget it all by the time they turn fifteen. (Thereby making room in their heads for other ‘stuff’, thereby reinforcing a model of education more appropriate for the 1950’s - as well as the idea that school is just something that one ‘has to do’.)

Third, since it’s apparently ok for students to memorize, and then forget this ‘stuff’, it implies that civics has no particular relevance to the students’ future.  (Again: it’s just one more hoop they have to jump through to get to the finish line.)

I will note that Pennsylvania has applied the same logic to the notorious Keystone exams.  Keep in mind that whether or not students still remember this stuff when they graduate - according the explicit intent of this legislation - is not important!

Fourth, does this test require that students demonstrate an ability to apply this ‘knowledge’ in any meaningful way?  You know, like being able to see multiple sides of a complex issue? To hear and understand different perspectives, and work towards a solution everyone can live with? Unfortunately, no. That might be useful!

It’s sadly ironic to think that long before Sandra Day O’Connor became a Supreme Court Justice and a dedicated advocate for meaningful civics education, she served two terms in the Arizona state senate.