Should Schools Turn Children into Activists? And Should Uncle Sam Help?

By 01/20/2012

7 Comments | Print | NO PDF |

Pretty much everybody favors better “civics education” in our schools and colleges. Pretty much everybody who thinks about such matters is alarmed that barely a quarter of U.S. school kids were at or above the “proficient” level on the 2010 NAEP assessment of civics—and that achievement at the twelfth-grade level is slipping even though just about all students “take civics” in high school. Almost everyone has encountered ample examples of students (and adults!) who cannot answer the most rudimentary questions about how the government is organized, what “separation of powers” or “checks and balances” means, how many senators their states have (much less their names), and more.

It is, indeed, a modern platitude that “we must do something to improve Americans’ knowledge of civics and government.”

But there is a problem in civics education, a sort of dividing line, about which there is far less agreement across society. On one side, we find an emphasis on infusing kids with basic knowledge about government, an understanding of the merits (as well as the shortcomings) of American democracy, and a sense of what can still be called patriotism: the belief that this country and its values need to be defended. (Stanford’s Bill Damon does a terrific job of elaborating on this viewpoint in his recent book, Failing Liberty 101.)

On the other side, we find much greater emphasis on civic participation and activism, on voluntarism and “service learning,” and on what is often termed “collective decision making” (or problem solving) and “democratic engagement,” which often boils down into the communitarian view that issues facing society are best dealt with through group action, by people joining hands and working together rather than through the political process.

I will admit, after watching the antics of Congress, many state legislatures, and the current GOP presidential candidates, that American society would benefit from more “working together” than our elected officials have displayed of late. (And I keep recalling the late David Broder’s remark that the death of Ted Kennedy marked the passing of the last of the Senate’s great “deal makers,” willing to compromise and work across party lines to accomplish something worthwhile, even if it wasn’t everything that either party wanted.)

Still and all, schools have a special responsibility to the young people in their care, which is to be exceptionally careful about providing lessons and activities of a political nature or enlisting them in adult causes, however worthy some may deem them. And Uncle Sam has a special responsibility not to “take sides” in the big debate—or, if it does, to come down on the side of patriotism. Unfortunately, a new report out of the U.S. Department of Education, one that appears to enjoy Arne Duncan’s strong personal backing, suggests that the executive branch is tilting toward the other side.

One is reminded, without pleasure, the ruckus that President Obama stirred up with his first back-to-school address in 2009—and the controversial “lesson plan” that the Education Department prepared to accompany it.

The “democratic engagement” faction within civics education has recently re-energized—even without Mr. Duncan’s help—and is pressing hard on schools to push kids into activism. You can see a vivid example of this in a recent publication called (cutely) A Crucible Moment and billed as “a national call to action.” Although it’s primarily aimed at colleges and universities, its authors make plain that its message is meant for primary and secondary schools, too. (Those authors, however, include absolutely nobody from the K-12 world.)

The publication sets forth a quintet of “essential actions,” among which I find three at least a bit troublesome, particularly when applied to compulsory public education of impressionable children rather than the voluntary education of young adults:

  • “Advance a contemporary, comprehensive framework for civic learning—embracing U.S. and global interdependence—that includes historic and modern understandings of democratic values, capacities to engage diverse perspectives and people, and commitment to collective civic problem solving.”Global interdependence? Collective civic problem solving?
  • “Capitalize upon the interdependent responsibilities of K–12 and higher education to foster progressively higher levels of civic knowledge, skills, examined values, and action as expectations for every student.” Values examined by whom? What sort of “action”?
  • “Expand the number of robust, generative civic partnerships and alliances, locally, nationally, and globally to address common problems, empower people to act, strengthen communities and nations, and generate new frontiers of knowledge.” What exactly are “generative civic partnerships” and who in particular is supposed to be “empowered” to do what?

Are you with me so far? But you may be thinking that this is all kind of academic and irrelevant, isn’t it, just one more pious commission report?

Well, it would be, but for one big attention-getter: Uncle Sam putting his thumb on this side of the civics-education scale.

Check out the Education Department’s brand-new official publication, Advancing Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy: A Road Map and Call to Action. Although this thirty-pager comes out of the Department’s postsecondary wing and is, once again, meant mostly for higher education, it, too, makes no real age-specific distinctions and explicitly urges the nation’s K-12 schools to, for example, “both expand and transform their approach to civic learning and democratic engagement, rather than engage in tinkering at the margins. At no school, college, or university should students graduate with less civic literacy and engagement than when they arrived.”

Duncan himself made a pretty big deal of this at a recent White House conference where he remarked that “Unlike traditional civic education, civic learning and democratic engagement 2.0 is more ambitious and participatory than in the past. To paraphrase Justice O’Connor, the new generation of civic education initiatives move beyond your ‘grandmother’s civics’ to what has been labeled ‘action civics.’”

Hmm, “action civics”?

To be sure, most of what the Department proposes to do itself in this realm is consistent either with longstanding federal practice (e.g. research, data) or with ingrained Obama-administration priorities (e.g. “public-private partnerships”). But there are policy hints that go farther, such as suggesting that the forthcoming ESEA/NCLB reauthorization should include a program to “assist states, local education agencies, and nonprofits in developing implementing, evaluating, and replicating evidence-based programs that contribute to a well-rounded education—including civics, government, economics, and history. Other disciplines included in the program could incorporate evidence-based civic learning and democratic engagement approaches—such as service-learning.”

Read that last bit again and ask yourself if this is really a proper federal role in K-12 education, keeping in mind that the kids to be affected probably cannot even name the mayor of their town or the governor of their state, nor have much idea what political parties are and how legislation gets passed (or not).

It’s well and good for the Education Department to seek a broadening of the K-12 curriculum and an overdue consolidation of too many discipline-specific curriculum-related programs into a single block grant. It’s not acceptable, however, for them to push “action civics” on our nation’s schools.

-Chester E. Finn Jr

This post was originally published in the Fordham Institute’s Education Gadfly Weekly

Comment on this article
  • Brian Brady says:

    Does Mr. Finn want “passive civics” taught instead? I’m not sure he understands what action civics is. It’s young people doing service learning, serving as judges of election, solving bullying problems at their school, talking to elected officials about their concerns, and working in groups to solve community problems.

    What is radical and dangerous about the actions above? Should we simply kill and drill kids on the Constititution? Sure, if we want to create a very apathetic generation of youth who dread going to civics class. Democracy is not just rules and regulations, it is also citizen participation. Action civics is simply the lab for students to develop their civic skills just as students develop their scientific skills in a science lab.

    I think Mr. Finn’s quick dismissal of action civics is a negation of students’ democratic voice and spirit. It is also poor pedagogy. If we truly value our democracy and good teaching than we have to allow our young people to develop their civic skills, knowledge, and leadership ability via action civics.

  • […] E. Finn, Jr., an often insightful conservative voice on education. In a column entitled “Should Schools Turn Children into Activists? And Should Uncle Sam Help?,” Finn expresses some concerns about “action […]

  • Jill Bass says:

    Doesn’t democracy require the participation of an informed citizenry? As John Adams said, “liberty cannot be preserved” without civic education, and that is all Action Civics aims to provide – civic education that will develop the skills, knowledge and dispositions for young people to engage and lead their communities. Remind me why that is a bad thing.

    The ideals of liberty and equality as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the glue that binds us as Americans. But currently, believe it or not, our young people are neither being taught, nor are they buying into these foundational values. One reason for that is that our current emphasis on standardized testing too often elevates only the “core subject areas,” to the exclusion of others such as civic education. . Another issue is that even when civics is taught, the dry, text book recitation of historical documents does little to inspire young people. In contrast, Action Civics makes the philosophies of our founding fathers and the systems of government they designed relevant to young people’s lives. It links philosophy and principle to the issues facing young people and their communities – and that is something that gets young people fired up. It gives students voice and agency, empowering them to be participatory stakeholders instead of passive recipients of policy.

    As John Dewey said, “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.” Action Civics aims to serve this purpose by giving students an opportunity not just to talk about democracy, but to live it.

  • A. Cohen says:

    Action civics, as defined by Pope et al. (2011), is a pedagogical approach in which civics content knowledge—the same material Dr. Finn discusses—is braided with students choosing an issue in their community to work on and developing an action plan for making change, thereby allowing them to apply and reinforce their knowledge in a student-centered manner.

    Action civics, as practiced by Generation Citizen, has led to impressive results observed in a multi-level quasi-experimental analysis of quantitative outcomes (Cohen et al., pending). Students whose schools participate in Generation Citizen are more likely to know basic civics content knowledge (including examples provided by Dr. Finn (e.g., the three branches of government, who their senators, mayor, and governor are)) and questions taken from the NAEP civics exam. In addition to increased civics knowledge, students are more likely to be civically engaged, including that they report that they are more likely to vote. As a researcher and evaluator specializing in statistical analysis and as a patriotic American citizen, I am most persuaded by the outcomes—citizens who are more informed and more likely to vote—and am less concerned about the mechanism by which these outcomes are attained. Since action civics appears to be one such promising approach, I believe it merits further inquiry, attention, and support.

    AK Cohen et al., Promoting civic engagement and civics knowledge: A multi-level evaluation of Generation Citizen, an action civics program, under review.

    A Pope et al., Closing the civic engagement gap: The potential of action civics, Social Education, 2011; 75(5): 265-268.

  • […] last week’s EducationNext, Chester E. Finn, Jr. raises some concerns about “action civics” and […]

  • […] That being said, I believe that a liberal arts education is much more appropriate and useful for a college education, than it is for elementary or secondary school. Since moving to Lansing, I have been volunteering as a classroom nutrition educator at several public elementary schools in the Lansing area. The evidence of a liberal education curriculum surrounds me the moment I walk into these schools. As I pass by a classroom with the door open, I can hear the teacher instructing the youth on topics such as George Washington’s personal life, or the civic responsibility of all citizens. Many teachers have posters hanging in their room that describe what it means to be a “good citizen”. Like Nodding’s says in her chapter on alternative visions, is it not more important for a child to learn how to relate and care for themselves and other people than it is for them to understand why it is important to vote? (Blog post on the debate of “Civics Education” in public schools: […]

  • […] reports plus Duncan’s speech drew the ire of conservative education commentator Chester E. Finn, Jr., who worries that the federal government is taking an inappropriate role by encouraging youth […]

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


    Sponsored Results

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform