IT’S ALL IN THE PRESENTATION

 

This posting continues with this blogger’s ideas concerning an ideal civics teacher preparation program that directly addresses the current state of poor citizenry in the US.  He argues that such a program should include five elements.  The last posting started with element one and it is,

 

A viable teacher preparation program needs to make clear that civic preparation is not only a foundation of civics education or even social studies, but also of all public education and of responsible private educational programs as well.

 

In supporting such a bold claim, that posting utilized the ideas of prominent educator, R. Freeman Butts, and several prominent historians, Allen Nevins, Henry Steele Commager, and Samuel E. Morrison.  They, in turn, cite the founding fathers and how they considered the need for public education.

          The crux of the argument is that it is only the general need for a viable and engaged citizenry – one necessary to maintain a republic – that justifies taxpayers being called upon to foot the bill for such an expensive endeavor.  For example, early on, there was the hesitancy among the rich to contribute to such funding since they would not be sending their children to such schools. 

But even in the case of private schools, the promotion of good citizenship should play a central role, since even the rich or other segments using private schools are expected to play their role in maintaining and even promoting the common good – that’s in everyone’s best interest in the long run.  Some might argue that a disregard for this imbedded relationship is a major cause of the nation’s current maladies.

There have been, through the years, attempts to delineate or identify what schools should offer and what their aims and goals should be.  A review of these offerings will indicate the relative position that civics education has enjoyed through the years.  Beginning with the Spencer Report in 1859, in which Herbert Spencer attempted to answer the question, “What Knowledge Is of Most Worth?” he listed five realms.

They are:  (1) direct self-preservation, (2) indirect self-preservation (obtaining food and shelter), (3) parenthood, (4) citizenship, and (5) leisure.[1]  Following this conceptual path, the National Education Association’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education issued in 1918 its famous Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education.  These principles are (1) health, (2) command of fundamental processes, (3) worthy home membership, (4) vocational education, (5) civic education, (6) worthy use of leisure, and (7) ethical character.[2]

Through these publications, one starts to sense a slight shift in emphasis.  While citizenship is still prominent, a more consumer orientation – one in which the student and his/her parents are seen as consumers of this public service – took hold.  Then, in 1938, the National Education Association (NEA) issued a report entitled The Purpose of Education in American Democracy, which seemed to re-ignite an, albeit modest, awareness of civics education.

This NEA report’s list of aims is (1) self-realization, (2) human relationships, (3) economic efficiency, and (4) civic responsibility.[3]  In this case, the historical context of that time seems to have played a role.  One can speculate that the level of interdependence which the Depression imposed on people encouraged a more communal set of aims.

More recent efforts to list aims and goals for education have maintained a lukewarm level of importance attributed to civics.  One can denote a more subordinate concern for the subject and a castigation of the field as being impractical and being sacrificed to the more utilitarian expectations of education – those of preparing students for the job market and other personal concerns. 

That is, educational aims and goals express a greater concern for the welfare of the individual students than for the health of the society.[4]  Education priorities have taken an even more consumer orientation, leaving the more civic concerns of the founding fathers far behind and mostly out of sight.  This blogger submits that that change is at the center of the nation’s civic/political problem that is tearing apart the general health of the republic.

On a more specific level, in the very field of social studies, amid concern and debate about how central the teaching of the social sciences and history disciplines should be in pre-college curriculums, social studies began in 1916 with a strong emphasis on a civic focus.  Social studies subjects were meant to assure that American children were amply prepared to take on the responsibilities of citizenship.  This was seen as particularly important in the midst of the vast immigration that was taking place in the early twentieth century.

A bit later, the disciplines of history and of the social sciences were to be supporting components of such an effort.[5]  This was, at that time, and is still controversial among both members of those organizations and those who nationally set the policies affecting social studies.  The professional organizations representing those academic fields that, it so happens, supported the birth and growth of social studies, were and are still supportive of such an emphasis.

Many in these organizations, such as the American Historical Association, wanted and still argue for a discipline-centered approach for social studies, an argument they “won” without being aware of it.  Most actual offerings in social studies are organized around textbooks that are often authored by experts in the fields of the social sciences and history but then go through the “neutering” process known as the textbook adoption process at state levels (a process that has garnered the critical attention of Diane Ravitch[6] among other commentators). 

The sum total of this reaction by academics has been misplaced.  What historians, for example, such as what the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. riled against, is basically inaccurate.  Social studies, as it was first defined, is not what children and adolescents experience in America’s schools.  What they experience is excessively structured material presented in textbooks written in horribly boring style and content, which has little to do with any preparation for citizenry in a meaningful way or enticement of students to pursue those subjects at higher levels.

These presentations are full of platitudes about the sacrifices of previous generations (which would be useful if couched in realistic settings with vivid, dramatic descriptions of how those sacrifices unfolded) or the abstract depictions of national institutions – such as the presidency.  For example, American government is taught as if it were a mechanical engine with parts and certain processes, devoid of the human quality that might engender any interest on the part of the student.

The only substantive topic given emphasis in the typical government textbook is that of individual rights.  Per se, that would be good if not for how exclusive that attention is and how clinical the language tends to be.  A recent review of one of the popular textbooks revealed three chapters dedicated to rights and the only reference to community in the index referred to local community standards as they related to censorship.

With that bit of criticism, this posting will stop describing this element.  The next posting will review the significance of the comments that this and the last posting conveyed relevant to the overall goal, the elements of a teacher preparation program.  Again, this first element of teacher preparation program is to instill in teachers a sense of how central civics is to what should be the purposes of a public-school education.

---

[1] Herbert Spencer, Education:  Intellectual, Moral, and Physical (New York, NY:  Alden, 1885)

[2] Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, Bulletin 35 (Washington, DC:  U. S. Office of Education, 1918).

[3] Educational Policy Commission, The Purpose of Education in American Democracy (Washington, DC:  National Education Association, 1938).

[4] See, for example, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Committee on Research and Theory, Measuring and Attaining the Goals of Education (Alexandria, VA:  ASCD, 1980) AND U. S. Department of Education, National Goals for Education (Washington, DC:  U. S. D. O. E., 1990).

[5] R. Freeman Butts, The Civic Mission in Educational Reform:  Perspectives for the Public and the Profession (Stanford, CA:  Hoover Institution Press, 1989).

[6] For a summary description of Ravitch’s critique see Jay Mathews, “Why Don’t We Fix Our Textbooks?”, The Washington Post (March 22, 2005), accessed September 30, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56501-2005Mar22.html .

PRIME REASON

 

While the challenge of promoting civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions is an ever present one, there currently seems to be an increased need to address this challenge.  For years, there has been an ongoing release of studies documenting the lack of these attributes or abilities that one associates with good citizenship among not only young people but citizens in general.

This has only magnified with the currently, often-cited polarization one finds in the American political landscape.  Surely, this reflects less than stellar accomplishments by the nation’s civics education programs.  And one can say, with the exception of recent reports in some segments of young people around the country, that things are not getting better.[1]  Here is what the journalist, Rebecca Winthrop, wrote in 2020,

Americans’ participation in civic life is essential to sustaining our democratic form of government.  Without it, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not last.  Of increasing concern to many is the declining levels of civic engagement across the country, a trend that started several decades ago.  Today, we see evidence of this in the limited civic knowledge of the American public, 1 in 4 whom, according to a 2016 survey led by Annenberg Public Policy Center, are unable to name the three branches of government.  It is not only knowledge about how the government works that is lacking – confidence in our leadership is also extremely low.  According to the Pew Research Center, which tracks public trust in government, as of March 2019, only an unnerving 17 percent trust the government in Washington to do the right thing.  We also see this lack of engagement in civic behaviors, with Americans’ reduced participation in community organizations and lackluster participation in elections, especially among young voters.[2]

This sort of concern and findings by a variety of academic and journalistic sources have been often cited in this blog.

          So, from less civic engagement in community efforts to acquiring political knowledge, both of the nation’s founding principles and of the civic challenges of the day, to voting and performing other civic activities, the level of engagement is wanting.  Within this context of how civics education efforts should be conducted, this blogger’s task – as he sees it – is to argue for those in charge to institute various elements of a reform effort in civics education. 

Naturally, besides what goes on in the classroom, that focus would include what the preparation of teachers should include to meet the challenges that civics education confronts today.  To meet the aims of imparting civic knowledge and skills and encouraging a disposition prone toward civic engagement, how teachers should approach these educational aims, what they should be able to do, and how  they should be prepared to do their jobs need to be considered. 

In order to meet the above concerns, one is apt, in typical business style, to collectively find the components of the teacher preparation process, narrow one’s focus to those portions of the process dedicated to preparing teachers to handle relevant civic factors, identify what’s wrong, and go about devising plans and allocate resources to fix the problem(s).  Sounds logical enough, but is it enough?

In addressing this topic, this posting does not count on its writer’s academic credentials but instead on his being a veteran classroom teacher of twenty-five years.  While the years of his service are a bit dated (1972-2000 – with some of those years having him do some other things), he feels they still provide relevant insights as to what is happening today – the reader will be the judge as to whether he is right. 

What he learned from that teaching experience – the constructed beliefs he developed – allows him to feel he can add to the discourse about what is ailing civics education.  No doubt the challenges facing civics are daunting, not only due to a lack of resources, but also due to a multitude of factors affecting the general situation.  With that in mind, what follows is his take on what should constitute an ideal teacher preparation program which emphasizes civics education. 

That is, what should such a program include as its elements?  Warning:  transcending all of these factors and elements is a holistic aspect that defies systemic linear thinking and planning as just described.  He hopes his presentation over several postings captures that sense and communicates it to the reader.  His goal in describing and explaining his specific plan is to convey an element, provide a rationale for it, and then speculate and react to what the reader might respond to the given element. 

This general order of presentation will be followed as the individual elements are addressed.  When all of the elements are “covered,” he will then make some general comments as to the holistic nature of the concern.  But before starting, the reader should also be advised that the elements will not be divided by postings.  For example, this posting begins its comments on element one and will continue with element one in the next posting.  How the whole presentation will appear or be divided is still being considered.

So, here is the first element,

Element One:  A viable teacher preparation program needs to make clear that civic preparation is not only a foundation of civics education or even social studies, but of all public education and of responsible private educational programs as well.[3]

          In terms of this element, it is helpful for one to step back a moment and ask why one supports public education.  What serves as the ultimate or trump value justifying all the expense that public education represents?  Different perspectives would probably elicit different answers to this question.

          One way to address this question is to look at the origins of public education; that is, what was the original intent of having public education?  According to the educational historian, R. Freeman Butts,[4] it was to support the development of a civic minded citizenry to meet the inherent needs of a functioning republic.  And supporting this notion are the thoughts of the historians Allen Nevins and Henry Steele Commager. 

They state:  “The Founding Fathers knew that their experiment in self-government was without precedent, and they took it for granted that it could not succeed without an enlightened electorate.”[5]  They go on to cite the efforts of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, George and his son DeWitt Clinton to establish an accessible school system in their respective states. 

And another historian, Samuel E. Morrison, more explicitly states the original purpose of public schools in the following way:

 

Opposition to free public education came from the people of property, who thought it intolerable that they should be taxed to support the common schools to which they would not dream of sending their children.  To this argument the poor replied with votes, and reformers with the tempting argument that education was insurance against radicalism.[6]

 

All other reasons than that of preparing responsible, civic minded citizens (such as preparing an educated workforce, keeping youngsters from competing for jobs and off the streets, advancing the career ambitions of individual citizens, etc.), while not necessarily exclusive of the main goal, are at best secondary.

          Yes, the expense of public schooling needed to be justified to others besides the rich and these practical and utilitarian reasons were advanced by the likes of Horace Mann[7] and others, but the main justification was the promotion of civic education.  Butts further writes,

In re-examining the stated purposes used to justify the development and spread of the common public school in the mid-nineteenth century, I believe that the citizenship argument is still valid.  The highest priority for a genuinely public school is to serve the public purposes of a democratic political community.  Those in favor of “excellence” or “back to the basics” [cries one commonly heard at the time Butts wrote these words] should be reminded that citizenship is the basic purpose for universal literacy.  If the fundamental purposes of schooling are to be confined to preparing for a job or developing individual talents, these might well be achieved in private schools that select students for particular destinies.  But the faith of the common school reformers, as of the founders, that the civic tasks can best be performed by public schools that are characterized primarily by a public purpose, public control, public support, public access, and public commitment to civic unity was soundly based.[8]

 

So, the first element is for involved and interested parties to see the main function of public and even private education is to promote good citizenship – all else follows from this fundamental aim.

And with that general support for a civic foundation, this posting stops and gives the reader an opportunity to mull over this role of civics or for this central rationale for public schools.  The next posting will pick up this first element, elaborate on it and, given the space remaining, continue with the others.  In all there are five elements.

---

[1] There have been reports of an uptick in young people becoming more politically engaged.  For example, see David Lauder, “Essential Politics:  Young People’s Political Engagement Is Surging.  That’s a Problem for Republicans,”  The Los Angeles Times (April 23, 2021), accessed September 27, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2021-04-23/surge-political-engagement-youth-problem-for-gop-essential-politics .

[2] Rebecca Winthrop, “The Need for Civic Education in the 21^st – Century Schools,” 2020 Brookings Policy (June 4, 2020), accessed September 26, 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/the-need-for-civic-education-in-21st-century-schools/ .

[3] These comments will directly address public education, but a lot of what will be stated will also apply to private or sectarian educational efforts. 

[4] R. Freeman Butts, The Civic Mission in Educational Reform:  Perspectives for the Public and the Profession (Stanford, CA:  Hoover Institution Press, 1989).

[5] Allen Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, A Pocket History of the United States (New York, NY:  Washington Square Press, 1986).

[6] Samuel E. Morrison, The Oxford History of the American People (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1965).

[7] Allen C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:  Foundations, Principles, and Issues (Boston, MA:  Pearson, 2004).

[8] Butts, The Civic Mission in Educational Reform, 130.