[Note: This posting, the previous several postings,
and at least the one to follow are a restatement of what has been addressed
previously in this blog. Some of the
sentences to come have been provided before but the concern is that other
information has been discovered and an update seems appropriate. The blog has not changed the overall message
– that civics education is seriously deficient – but some of the evidence supporting
that message needs updating.]
With the speculative
wandering of the last posting stated, next a more targeted view is
offered. This posting combines two
measures of how effective our civics instruction is. The two are levels of political knowledge and
social capital. This blog finds it
useful to again revisit this factor, political knowledge.
Earlier,
this blog reported on
the findings of the National Association of Secretaries of State and its
conclusion that young people “lack any real understanding of
citizenship…information and understanding about the democratic process…and
information about candidates and political parties.”[1] But there are different spins among
academic findings regarding the level of knowledge and engagement that American
citizens, including the young, have. One
finds a good dose of nuance in what is reported.
For example, Robert D. Putnam found
in his review of relevant research that except for voting, American rates of
political engagement are high compared to other democracies.[2] Even in terms of how much people know about
politics, both in terms of information and skills, the National Center of
Educational Statistics – the IEA study – found US levels among adolescents were
high when compared to twenty-seven other nations.[3]
Globally, Ronald Inglehart found increased
levels of participation in political activities by those who live in industrial
and post-industrial societies.[4] While earlier cited research studies are more
recent – these studies offering this nuance spin have some age to them – one
should keep their message in mind. For
one thing, the nature of involvement changes as is the case with the use of
social media. Also, political ideologies
around the world view engagement very differently and many do not even hold it
up as desirable.
It has also changed from those type
of activities this writer was taught when he was in civics and government
classes at school. For example, the
earlier cited writer, Charles Euchner, argues that American participation in
politics has become, in many instances, unconventional. Reminding the reader, he names this form of
participation as “extraordinary politics.”
Euchner posits that traditional forms
of political involvement, such as discussing politics with one’s neighbor, are
disappearing. Again, extraordinary
politics are acts such as civil disobedience, demonstrations, boycotts, and
creating or exhibiting subversive art and literature. These activities can be very disruptive, and
one can see the logical connection between extraordinary politics and civic
incivility.
An example was demonstrated by
Cuban-Americans in Miami, Florida, back in the 1980s. They mounted an organized car and truck
caravan strategy in which they drove on the expressway at twenty miles an hour
or slower to block traffic. Their aim
was to protest some government policy.
These types of activities can be very
divisive for a community. In more recent
years there have been “tea party” demonstrations and demonstrations over grand
juries not indicting policeman for killing unarmed African-American men. Many of these demonstrations were conducted
in legitimate forms, yet some of them verged on disruptive behavior that at
times promoted violence. In the more
extreme, they fall within what one can see as cases of civic incivility. Why?
Because they tear at any likelihood of enhancing social capital.
One, of course, needs to be careful
here. Surely, many of the activities
back in the 1960s and 1970s making up what later was considered the civil
rights movement could easily be seen as falling under this rubric of
extraordinary politics, yet, in retrospect, they were essential in the fight
against bigotry, Jim Crow laws, and other practices of discrimination. As such, they were legitimate and useful to
advance federalist values. Falling short
of passing judgement on any specific protest, the concern here is that there is
a propensity to readily employ disruptive tactics.
On the other hand, Putnam also
reports that a lot of political “involvement” has become a matter of writing
checks – “checkbook” engagement. A
person shows his or her support by making donations to a political party or a
lobbying group. For example, many older
Americans write checks to the American Association for Retired Persons. The problem is that such engagement
substitutes donations for the person-to-person quality of more traditional
forms of participation.
In addition, it hands over to
professionals the actual planning and implementation of political action. Putnam reports that between 1973-74 and
1993-94, there was a 25% decrease in traditional activities such as volunteer
work for a political party, community involvement activities, petition signing,
running for office, attending local meetings, serving local organizations,
writing articles, serving as a club officer, membership in improving government
groups, etc.[5] This more closely mirrors findings reported
earlier in this blog.
As alluded to earlier in this blog,
participation relies on knowledge and, in turn, adds to knowledge; that is,
there is a mutually enhancing link between political participation and
political knowledge. The two have a
reciprocal relationship, each strengthening the other. Therefore, there is an obvious educational
result from people gaining the knowledge that accrues from the experiences of
actual political work.
One is engaged in a dicey exercise
when gauging how knowledgeable US students are or how knowledgeable their adult
counterparts are. One can give knowledge
tests, but one might shortchange what political knowledge a person has by
“missing” that knowledge in the questions one asks.
This can particularly apply to
knowledge gained from political participation.
Therefore, any generalization over what Americans know or do not know is
speculative, at best. What often goes
unreported are the types of knowledge that stem from more day to day
experiences: the type of knowledge
obtained on the streets.
A meaningful look that attempts to
see how much Americans know about current conditions was conducted in another Pew
Research Center study in 2014.[6] It found
the following:
(Each entry below includes:
paraphrased versions of the survey questions, the percent of respondents
getting the questions correct, and the correct answer)
·
What
is the federal minimum wage? 73% of
respondents got it correct. The right
answer in 2014: $7.25.
·
In
what nation does ISIS control territory?
67% of respondents got it correct.
The right answer in 2014: Syria.
·
Ukraine
was a part of what political entity? 60%
of respondents got it correct. The right
answer: USSR.
·
What
is Common Core? 49% of respondents got
it correct. The right answer: national educational standards.
·
What
is the source of North Dakota’s economic boom?
46% of respondents got it correct.
The right answer: oil.
·
In
what country is there an outbreak of Ebola?
46% of respondents got it correct.
The right answer in 2014:
Liberia.
·
What
is the name of Israel’s prime minister?
38% of respondents got it correct.
The right answer in 2014:
Netanyahu.
·
What
is the current unemployment rate? 33% of
respondents got it correct. The right
answer in 2014: circa 6%.
·
In
which country do Shiites outnumber Sunnis?
29% of respondents got it correct.
The right answer: Iran.
·
Who
is the chairperson of the Federal Reserve (FED)? 24% of respondents got it correct. The right answer in 2014: Yellen.
·
In
which budget line item does the federal government spend most funds? 20% of respondents got it correct. The right answer: Social Security.
·
What
portion of the US population is below the poverty line? 20% of respondents got it correct. The right answer in 2014: 15%.
Is this a good or not so good level
of political knowledge? Are the
questions reflective of useful political knowledge or are they random concerns
that a person engaged or interested in politics and government might know or
not know? Whether these are useful
questions about the political world one can only speculate. One can ascertain that the state of our
current politics and how general political issues are discussed and argued
about, these questions seem to be relevant, at least in how the media portray
contemporary issues.
The above numbers are
interesting. Particularly distressful
are the results on the questions concerning the unemployment rate, FED
chairperson, government spending, and poverty line. These questions reflect or are related to how
well the nation is/was doing. One would
suppose that such questions would have higher correct rates in a nation where
it was common to be involved in the political environment of the day.
Again, one can therefore
cite, in summary, several indicators on how well our civics education is doing;
that is, indicators reflecting lower levels of social capital among Americans,
including higher rates of incivility, low levels of political knowledge, and
higher political participation in disruptive and divisive activities as in
extraordinary politics.
The evidence seems to
indicate, especially when compared with American historical levels, that those
who are responsible for imparting instruction in the field of civics education
should heed these conditions as a challenge.
Let this account be clear: the nation needs to do a better job with
civics education.
But
there is one more area that is related to civics education but seldom
considered. That are the levels of
law-abiding behavior. Here, this account
focuses on actual criminal behaviors and behaviors that enable crime. The next posting begins reporting on this
last element of citizenship.
[1] Americans’
Knowledge of Political System,” National
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), 1999, http://www.nass.org/ (since originally accessed, the report has
been taken down).
[2] Robert D.
Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of American Community (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
[3] “What Democracy
Means to Ninth-Graders: U.S. Results from the International IEA Civic Education
Study,” National Center for Education
Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, 2001.
[4] Ronald Inglehart, Modernization
and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
[5] A more recent work by Putnam is his edited book, Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social
Capital in Contemporary Society, (2002), in which he brings together
scholars that report lower levels of participation in social institutions such
as unions, churches, and political parties in advanced democracies. Noted
exception was Sweden. See Robert D.
Putnam (editor), Democracies in Flux: The
Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002).
[6] “Pew Research: Political Polarization in the American Public,”
The Pew Research Center, June 6, 2014, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.
No comments:
Post a Comment