Discover more from Democraticus- The Democratist
Summing Up Our Nation’s Early Civic Literacy
These then, were the building blocks for our country’s civic literacy into the twentieth century:
· Participating in and practicing democracy at the local level in all phases of life.
· Developing on a national basis a commonality of language, curriculum, ideas, morals, and other shared knowledge through widely circulated schoolbooks and a dictionary.
· Educating all, regardless of societal ranking or economic status, at public schools with a common curriculum that promoted commonality of ideas and knowledge.
· Understanding and celebrating American unity based upon “the multitudes”.
· Common schools staffed with educators who held to the vision of the centrality of the common school’s role for building and developing future citizens of a United States of America.
But, something changed. What was it and how did happen?
How We Create Citizens Changed
The Civic Mission of Schools Report recounts that “…By 1890, nearly every American child between the ages of five and 13 attended school regularly, with the vast majority in schools funded and administered by newly emergent school districts. Civic education was integral to curricula nationwide…” This report adds that even though rote memorization was used in the classroom of that day far more than today, “…public schools of a century ago provide a model for placing civic learning at the center of American education…”[1]
Up until the 1960s, there were three courses commonly offered in U.S. high schools. The first was civics which focused on citizens’ roles, especially at the state and local levels. Second was a course of “problems in democracy”. This course encouraged students to “discuss current issues and events”. Finally, the third course, on the subject of the U.S. government itself, taught the structures and functions of the national government.[2]
Less Time and Less Emphasis on Civic Education in the Classroom
By the time of the 2011 Civic Mission of Schools Report, the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress Civics Assessment (NAEP) results were alarming, showing two-thirds of all American students scoring below proficient. The same NAEP test showed less than one-third of eighth graders could identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence. Less than a fifth of high school seniors could explain how citizen participation benefits democracy. [3]
In Summer 2018, Educators Shapiro and Brown noted on the American Federation of Teachers web site that today, our states have very different requirements as far as minimum course requirements for our children’s civic education saying, “…Only nine states and the District of Columbia require one year of U.S. government or civics, while 30 states require a half year, and the other 11 states have no civics requirement…”[4] Shapiro and Brown go on to say:
“While federal policy has focused on improving academic achievement in reading and math, this comes at the expense of a broader curriculum. Most states have dedicated insufficient class time to understanding the basic functions of government. State civics curricula are heavy on knowledge but light on building skills and agency for civic engagement.”[5] (emphasis mine)
The Culprit?
Hirsch contends that U.S. educators in the 1920s through the 1940s were still “civic center” in their educational approach. But, in the 1950s, as older textbooks began to be replaced as well as teachers retired, a new educational theory began to be used in the classroom. To Hirsch, this single change had more to do with deteriorating our public schools’ ability to educate children to be effective citizens than anything else.
What was this change? It was the replacement of the common school. The common school, which utilized a structured common curriculum that, in Hirsch’s view, created a shared knowledge community that included civic concepts, ideals, and expectations of citizenship. With the advent of the child-centered school, Hirsch advocates a view that this all fell to the wayside.
This child-centered educational approach became the bedrock of universities and college’s teacher preparation programs today. At the risk of losing focus on the state of our on civic literacy and turning this into an educational journal, this child-centered educational approach has at its center the philosophy that a child needs to “construct” their own learning. The child themselves needs to determine their own learning, as opposed to the teacher presenting the knowledge (i.e., content) the child is to absorb and learn.
Hirsch presents many scientific, neurological-psychological arguments that he believes disproves the soundness of the child-centered school of thought. He argues the child-centered approach is not based on true science regarding how a child’s brain develops. The brain we are born with is an empty slate. We do not know what we do not know, so how can a child identify what it is they need to learn? This is also called by some educators as the “constructivist approach” to learning. That is, the child identifies and builds their own learning, the teacher is there as a guide, not to present knowledge and information.
Without getting into all the pros and cons, and well as the psychological and neurological arguments for and against the child-centered educational approach, Hirsch, who is an obvious critic of this child-centered/constructivist educational approach, says:
“Since the 1960s, our schools have been relying on a “progressive” approach called “child centered learning” promoted and promulgated by our graduate schools of education. Education officials indoctrinated by those ideas set school standards that are unspecific with regard to content. Teachers similarly indoctrinated, have gradually abandoned teaching knowledge coherently in favor of teaching mush on the scientifically incorrect premise that they are imparting general reading skills and general thinking skills. But by neglecting their citizen making duties, they are in fact diminishing our national unity and competence.” (emphasis mine)[6] (emphasis mine)
For Hirsch, the deleterious impacts of moving away from a shared, common knowledge-based education approach to our nation’s “citizen building” efforts have been devastating. Hirsch points to several data points to prove up his argument regarding his conclusions. By the 1960s, verbal scores in our middle school and high school graduates began to decline. This is vital according to Hirsch because, “…language mastery depends not on diversity but on commonality of knowledge. With the child-centered philosophy of education “…we began to see a reduction of knowledge generally, and of shared knowledge in particular. Later, we began to see a drop in reading and social communication across the nation…”[7] (emphasis mine)
And Our Collective Civic Identity Changed
Along the way, something else occurred that seriously undermines the creation of a democratically informed citizenry. Our collective identity changed. Sure, we continue to view ourselves as Americans, but not first and foremost as American citizens. Instead, we see ourselves as first as customers and consumers of government services, not as primarily as citizens.
This shift in Americans’ primary identity is huge, yet has been going on beneath the surface for a long time with efforts by the government to provide “great customer service” to their “customers”. As important as it is for government to provide good (even great) service, this shift to citizens as customers greatly affects our civic literacy. It is our identity. According to Michael Tomasky in his book If We Can Keep It, Americans have moved far beyond having as their primary personal identity being that of citizen.
Once one begins to hear that they are a customer more than a citizen, it is a short journey to reinforcing a transformation that Tomasky says has being going on for some time now. To Tomasky, we now see ourselves more as consumers than any other role. A consumer of everything, not just government services.[8] Our government becomes something that does not require our involvement as citizens. Instead, we can sit back, pay our taxes and our water bills, and treat our government like a proverbial vending machine. Easy peasy. Much easier than being a constructively involved citizen. In fact, why learn anything about government? It does it all for us!
Tomasky emphasizes the importance of this identity transformation because, in contrast to identifying primarily as a consumer, having one’s primary identity being that of a citizen carries with it thinking of other persons’ interest sometimes, or in the common interest (or as some call it, the common good).
Plus, Civic Participation Has Declined
Finally, along with the forces shaping the poor performance of the United States’ public education system to “build citizens”, the “coup de gras” has been the decline of our civic participation. Appelbaum quotes historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. who said in 1944, “…Voluntary associations have “provided the people with their greatest school of self-government…” But, as Appelbaum goes on to describe, things have changed:
“…the United States is no longer a nation of joiners. As the political scientist Robert Putnam famously demonstrated in his Bowling Alone[9], participation in civic groups and organizations of all kinds declined precipitously in the last decades of the 20th century. The trend has, if anything, accelerated since then; one study found that from 1994 to 2004, membership in such groups fell by 21 percent. (emphasis mine)
Applebaum points out this this likely understates the actual decline in civic participation saying:
“…as slight uptick in passive memberships has masked a steeper fall in attendance and participation. The United States is no longer a nation of presidents, either. In 2010 census survey, just 11 percent of respondents said that they had served as an officer or been on a committee of any group or organization in the previous year.”[10]
Is It Hopeless?
By now, the reader is likely asking themselves, what can be done about this? The short answer is- plenty. This situation is not hopeless. But, we have to decide we want to fix it. The “fixes” are out there if we are willing to tackle what is one of the root causes of our nation’s political paralysis.
Perhaps the best question to ask is, can we afford not to address our national civic illiteracy?
Not if we want our to sustain American democracy for our children and grandchildren.
[1] “The Guardian of Democracy, The Civic Mission of Schools”, 2011, pg. 12, Ibid
[2] “The Guardian of Democracy, The Civic Mission of Schools”, 2011, pg. 12, Ibid
[3] “The Guardian of Democracy, The Civic Mission of Schools”, 2011, pg. 14, Ibid
[4] “A Look at Civics Education in the United States”, by Sarah Shapiro and Catherine Brown, American Educator, Summer 2018, https://www.aft.org/aesummer2018/shapiro_brown.
[5] “A Look at Civics Education in the United States”, by Sarah Shapiro and Catherine Brown, American Educator, Ibid
[6] How to Educate a Citizen, The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation, by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., pp 4-5, Ibid.
[7] How to Educate a Citizen, The Power of Shared Knowledge to Unify a Nation, by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., pg. 21, Ibid
[8] If We Can Keep It, How the Republic Collapsed and How We Can Keep It, by Michael Tomasky, Copyright 2019, pg. 125, Liveright Publishing Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110
[9] Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community, by Robert D. Putman, pp 541, Copyright 2000, Simon & Schuster, Rockefeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New NY 10020
[10] “Americans Aren’t Practicing Democracy”, by Yoni Applebaum, The Atlantic, October 2018, pg. 5 of 10, Ibid.