Wednesday, November 11, 2015

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. 

3 comments:

  1. Couldn't agree with you more except don't downplay the factual knowledge too much. "Rote memorization" always sounds bad but the truth is that if you don't know when certain things happened, or what they were about it, you may not be in the best position to make decisions and participate in good civic debate now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks. I agree with your point, as well. A certain amount of factual information is necessary in order to have a framework in which to develop a conceptual understanding. For example, one would need to know that the Civil War occurred in the middle of the 19th century. The date that Ft. Sumter was fired on, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I, too, wonder if the current Gen-Xers have grappled with enough controversy to comprehend the purpose of a quality education; no offense intended because none of us can affect our birthdates. When controversy arrises, often the appropriate reaction is healthy and informed protest--versus an attitude of "It is what it is and I can't do anything about it." In the early 1990s, professors of education were passing along the multitude of research on "teaching for thinking." It was cutting-edge research conducted by experts at the most prolific institutions in the U. S. We infused this philosophy into our public schools, and schools began addressing the cognitive needs and social needs of our communities with this critical perspective of reality. Unfortunately, the movement was hijacked by the business community and ignorant legislators looking for a way to measure every minute of learning. The resulting effects are a populace often uncommitted and disinterested in engaging in debate, conversation, or using critical analysis and skepticism to question the status quo. If we intend to make progress as a democracy, we must inculcate these two essential values in our youth and adults: skepticism and empathy. These come about--as does genuine cognitive growth according to neuroscientists--via conversations and the opportunity to focus on the issues that matter in life--from ethnic diversity to war to health care to equal opportunity. These particular values aren't inculcated by preparing students for tests or regurgitating facts like owl pellets!

    ReplyDelete