JULY 5, 1776?

Here is a salutary bit of information.  It seems that to get a college degree in Florida, a student needs to exhibit the following:

… an understanding of the basic principles of American democracy and how they are applied in our republican form of government, an understanding of the United States Constitution, knowledge of the founding documents and how they have shaped the nature and functions of our institutions of self-governance, and an understanding of landmark supreme Court cases and their impact on law and society.[1]

Hooray!!  This is taken from a State of Florida statute passed in 2017.  But how does one exhibit or demonstrate these abilities.  This posting focuses on this requirement and what it says about the state of civics education.

          First concern:  shouldn’t high school students be able to do these things?  Of course, there is a bit of vagueness in what is being asked.  For example, understanding the United States Constitution can range from having to pass that portion of the bar exam that’s dedicated to constitutional law or merely stating the Constitution is the basic law of the land.  But a high school graduate should have a reasonable level of understanding and knowledge over the topics mentioned in the excerpt above.

          That graduate, for example, should be able to provide a statement that distinguishes what a “republican form of government” is from what a pure democracy form or an authoritarian form is.  He/she should be able to describe how Supreme Court decisions are used as precedents in subsequent cases.  These levels of knowledge seem reasonable for a high school graduate to have.

          Second concern:  how is one going to measure the level of proficiency sought?  In this, the law identifies those avenues by which the college graduate can exhibit the desired knowledge.  They are:

sign up and pass a college level survey course on American government; or, sign up and pass a college American survey history (since 1865) course; or sign up and pass an Advance Placement (AP) American government course (which this writer believes is a high school course – he taught back in the day); or sign up and pass an AP American history course (again thought to be a high school course); or passing the College Level Examination Program test; or – and here is the questionable way – pass by correctly answering six questions on a test made up of ten randomly chosen questions excerpted from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Naturalization Test.

All of these choices, except one, is demanding.  The one – the one identified as questionable – is not. 

The Immigration test is – perhaps reasonably since it is administered to all people striving to be citizens and who represent people from little to no formal education to highly educated people – has a different purpose than the one identified in the law.  The law is meant to assure that educated people know their government and the philosophy that undergirds it.  Ideally, every citizen should have this knowledge, but the law wants to insist that educated ones do.

Well, what’s wrong with the Immigration test?  Here is a sample of the questions:

What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?

When was the Declaration of Independence adopted?

Name one branch of the government.

Name one war fought by the United States in the 1900s.

Who is President of the United States?

Name two national holidays.[2]

If you find the toughness overwhelming, relax.  Although all of the 100 questions are equally challenging, one can find the answers online along with the complete listing of the 100 questions that makeup the test.

Oh, one might say, this is a different kind of thing.  Perhaps the lawmakers got confused and thought the requirement should be for graduates of the seventh grade?  Well, this obvious undermining of what the law was reasonably trying to secure drew a critical reaction.  Consequently, in the future – yet to be determined when – the test used on college graduates will be augmented with other questions (hopefully reasonable ones).  But, in the interim there is this legal bypass to meeting the demands of the law. 

Why is there this bypass?  Is it a lack of knowing what the Immigration test contains?  Or, is it a perceived need to address the lack of civic knowledge generally shared by college graduates?  If that’s the case, then this is but another indication of how deficient the nation’s civics education program is.

---

[1] As stated in Bob Holladay, “‘Civic Literacy’ Requirement Being Eroded by DOE Rules,” Tallahassee Democrat, March 27, 2018, 4A.

[2] Ibid.

WOW, WHAT A WEEKEND!

This past weekend is memorable!  Some high school teachers and schools are doing a great job at teaching civics.  At least, given the numbers of demonstrators who took the time and expense to “march for our lives,” the message, that democracy is about getting involved, has hit its mark.

Now one does not need to agree with their gun control position to find this level of participation gratifying.  It is surely a sign that democratic values are strong among the youth of the nation – at least among these young people.  They are engaged, and for those who are so engaged, because they experienced the shooting at the Parkland high school, one can readily understand why.

          Of course, one needs to be careful.  Nationally, most of the young people did not participate or perhaps care about the protest.  But those who did – and most of the tens of thousands who were out there – did not have that personal experience that the Florida kids had – readily went out and expressed their opinions. 

This weekend has conjured up, for this writer, some thoughts about why this past weekend happened and why it seems to have been effective.  And, in this vein, what such events seem to highlight for civics teachers.

          The first thought was on the role of technology.  One of the speakers in Washington pointed out that with a smart phone, everyone has, at their fingertips, an easily accessible library of information.  This adds the potential for knowledgeable – well-informed – activism. 

Civics instruction at school should dedicate time to evaluating internet sites.  Yes, there is a lot of “fake” information – much of it intentionally put there for political purposes, but there is a lot that is legitimate.  Civics teachers should, first, become informed as to how to evaluate sites, and, two, instruct students to detect such sources.  They can also have appropriate assignments in which students are called upon to use those phones to garner reliable information and inquire into critical, civic issues.

          But there is another function that smart phone can serve.  This very weekend, MSNBC broadcasted an interesting documentary that, in part, was critical of how mainstream media covered the civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 60s.  Hope and Fury[1] looks at the role the media played in covering and interpreting the work of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders (e.g., Stockley Carmichael).  The main point was that the media bolstered the potential of violence to draw higher viewership.

          In one segment, the point was made that in more recent coverage of “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations, protesting recent police shootings of blacks, smart phone videos illustrated the mostly peaceful actions of the demonstrators.  Citing a specific example, a conservative network made claims of how demonstrators were just wanting to loot and showed chemicals the demonstrators were allegedly using for incendiary devises.  The smart phone videos showed something else, that the protesters predominantly used legal tactics – marching and shouting their demands.

          And the smart phone is but one technological advancement – there’s social media, advancements in manufacturing, transportation, etc. – that promise to affect not just protesting, but all sorts of social engagements.  One writer who is reporting on these developments and their effects on the lives of regular citizens is John Hawthorne.[2]  Again, civic teachers should be knowledgeable and willing to share with their students these developments.

          The last thoughts about this weekend has to do with motivation.  This writer could not help but be reminded of his younger days and the Vietnam protests.  It occurs to him that there is an overlap.  In both cases, the fact that either the shootings at school sites or the possibility of getting shot in Vietnam seems to motivate citizens who are threatened in this manner to pound the pavement and express their concern.  Does this current version have a lasting effect?

          Time will tell, but many of those cohorts of prior days have led lives that has been affected by those earlier experiences.  Their demonstrations surely had an effect on American policy.  One, the disruptions led to the end of the draft; two, they helped eighteen-year-olds to get the vote; and, three, they, as a model, helped encourage military families to band together to fight for their mutual interests.[3]

Whether the weekend proves to be effective or not, it did demonstrate that Americans can still have a political discussion.  It will be interesting to see if the “pro-Second Amendment”[4] proponents will try something similar or revert to more standard forms of politicking.  To further frame this issue:  while there is about one gun or firearm for each American out there, only thirty to forty percent own one.[5]  Let the discussion continue.  Again, this is a treasure trove for civics teachers.  Unfortunately, it is one that has come about at such a high cost.

---

[1] Aired on MSNBC, March 25, 2018.

[2] See John Hawthorne, “Manufacturing Technology Trends That Will Change Your Life,” February 5, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.iqsdirectory.com/blog/manufacturing-technology-trends-that-will-change-your-life/.

[3] Rudy de Leon, “5 Ways Vietnam War Changed America.” CNN, June 25, 2015, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/opinions/deleon-vietnam-war-effects/index.html.

[4] In full disclosure, this writer does not believe the Second Amendment gives every individual the right to “bear” arms.  That amendment was meant to secure the right of states to maintain armed militias independent of the central government.

[5] Harry Enten, “There Is a Gun for Every American.  But Less Than a Third Owns One.”  CNN, February 18, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html.