A COAT THAT FITS

From time to time, a teacher knows he or she needs to cover some material that might not be the most scintillating subject.  Amending a constitution is one such subject, but it is fairly important.  One approach is to use a related issue as a takeoff that can lead to the other aspects of the subject matter.  In the case of amending a constitution, one such issue is how easy the process is to change the document by ratifying an amendment.  Why is this an issue?  Because a constitutional process that is too prone toward change is one that encourages people to lose sight of a very important constitutional quality; that is, the quality that holds the constitution as a fundamental law.  Let me explain.

What is a constitution?  In our system, one that follows the federal model, it is an agreement.  For readers of this blog, this will sound familiar.  The agreement is among the people of a society who have come together, usually through representation, to write the agreement that will be proposed to the people for their approval.  The agreement is one that establishes a government.  It more specifically identifies the purposes motivating the proposal, a list of general principles in the form of a bill of rights, a structural plan for the government, a list of special powers and/or limitations of powers (this includes provisions for those who do not live up to the agreement), and the signatures of the representatives who agree with the document.  By signing the document, the representative is pledging allegiance to the provisions of the document.  Usually, the requirement is that all the representatives sign the agreement.  In order to get that unanimous approval, many negotiations have to take place.  The process then calls for a ratification of the constitution.  This latter provision calls on the people to directly or through more localized representatives to vote in approval or disapproval.  If a super majority, say two-thirds or three-fourths, agrees with the constitution, it goes into effect at a given time.  This vote not only indicates whether the people agree with the document, but also is a pledge or promise to live by its provisions.  For those who vote against the document, they also are bound by the provisions if they choose to continue being a part of that society.  If the pledge calls on God as a witness, it is a covenant; if it doesn’t, it is a compact.  Our national constitution is a compact.

Now here is the issue.  Since the constitution is the fundamental law of the land, should it be easy to change?  Now the issue does not apply to our national constitution since it is very difficult to change, but state constitutions are something else.  The prime example of an amendment process that can be considered as too easy is that of California.  There are more ins and outs involved, but that state’s process includes a proposal phase in which a mere eight percent of the electorate sign a petition and the proposal is placed on an upcoming election ballot.  If a simple majority agree, the proposal becomes part of the constitution.  But that is only the most egregious example.  Other states not only have fairly open processes but also the substance of proposed amendments in many states falls far afield from the type of topics I outlined above.  For example, many states have constitutional provisions that govern economic policies, regulation policies, and cultural policies.  For example, here in Florida we recently voted on two amendment proposals, one that would allow the sale of marijuana for medical purposes and another providing funds for public land acquisition.  I know this is a matter of opinion, but to me these are policy questions that should be handled by regular statutes, not constitutional provisions.  I will add, though, that in order to be ratified, a proposal has to have a sixty percent approval rate in Florida.  What seems to be the biggest concern is that by being able to easily change the constitution or opening it up to more day to day issues, the constitution loses its lofted sense of importance; it loses the “sacred” aura that I believe it should inspire.  The constitution is the vehicle by which we commit ourselves to each other.

On the other hand, can the process be too severe?  In the case of our national amendment process, has it proven to be too burdensome?  Some ask whether, by making it as difficult as it is, we have made it near impossible to meet the challenges of a changing society.  About this, Thomas Jefferson, during the later years of his life, wrote:

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and institutions. . . . But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.  We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors.[1]

Yes, times change and even our basic notions about life, in general, and all of its aspects, including how we govern ourselves, need to keep up with those changes if we wish to prosper and even survive as a viable society.  Today is no different.  For example, our inability to control the amount of money that influences our politics has made our system less democratic, less respectful of our commitment to equality.  Yet any talk of proposing and having a constitutional amendment ratified is readily dismissed given how difficult it is.  Another legitimate constitutional problem that needs addressing is how we draw up congressional districts and the associated problem of gerrymandering.  Again, this is a problem that can be solved only through changing our constitution and is therefore seen as being beyond solving.

Once students understand the function of constitutions, the process by which constitutions are amended, and the issue of how easy or difficult that process should be, students could be assigned to address the issue described above; that is, they can come up with a constitutional provision that would hit upon the right balance between a process that is too easy or too hard.

So, I know you’re just dying to see what my solution happens to be.  Here it goes:  first, adopt a process that is as difficult as our national constitution calls for, but add the following.  Institute a modified constitutional convention provision in which a convention of representatives – voted on for this specific purpose – convenes every twenty years.  The convention is to propose a new constitution.  The document they propose can be just a copy of the constitution already in effect or it can have a few or many changes or it can be a whole new document.  After the document is issued, the people get to voice their acceptance or rejection.  A sixty percent approval rate sounds about right.  If the proposed constitution is just an exact copy of what is in effect, then the vote would be a simple expression of allegiance as the constitution is already assured to continue.  I believe that an active statement of approval is important; it reminds us of the centrality of a constitution.  This process, if adopted at either the national or state level, I think, would meet that balance between a too difficult or too easy a process.  Also, since highlighting the process with a convention would bring added attention among the populace, the process might discourage some of the more “unconstitutional” type of proposals from being brought up – this could be further enhanced if some instructional programming on TV or social media accompany the calling of the constitutional convention.  For, after all, as Jefferson so aptly put it, we need a constitution that fits our current realities, but maintains the dignity of a true constitution.

---

[1] As quoted in Hofstadter, R.  (1948).  The American political tradition.  New York, NY:  Vintage Books.  Citation on p. 44.  One can interpret Jefferson’s use of the term “institutions” as including constitutional provisions.

DOG WHISTLE

Just when you think we’re done with the stupidity of the birthers, we’re all dragged back in.  If you haven’t seen the tape, a participant at a Donald Trump rally pointed out that we all have a big problem:  Muslims.  And of course, our president is one of them.  By the way, according to this guy, Muslims have training camps in which they are trained to do us harm.  As one of the pundits on TV pointed out, there are camps teaching Muslims to inflict harm; they’re known as US military training camps where they are volunteers who go through basic training.  Apparently, there are about 3,500 members of our armed forces who profess the Muslim religion.

In the last few postings, I have revisited the case I made early on in the history of this blog.  That is, that due to some quantifiable indicators, we can conclude that our civics instruction in this country needs some changing; we’re not doing a good enough job.  One such indicator was the level of political knowledge.  At the time, I used the incidence of birthers, the belief among a significant number of Americans who believed that President Obama is, one, a Muslim and, two, born in some foreign country (Nigeria being the most common location cited).  I also mentioned that there were – and probably still are – a significant number of people who believe President Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attack so that he could take us to war in Iraq.  In either instance, the level of delusion is worth considering.  When one ponders the amount of collusion such realities demand and the absence of reasonable evidence to support either contention, one is hard pressed to understand why anyone is so taken in by such outlandish claims.

Here is an aim for public education:  get the number of people so disposed to only an insignificant number – say under five percent of the population.  That would be refreshing.  Our media’s reaction to the incident at the Trump rally is to question why the candidate did not correct the misinformed supporter.  We are reminded how John McCain, under a similar situation, did just that.  But look at this from the Donald’s position:  how much support would he lose if he did correct the audience member?  After all, the bulk of his support is from this type of mentality, this type of misinformation.  Why don’t his numbers go down as he commits one gaffe after another?  Because his base is this population.  Trump has, I believe, garnered a whole lot of participation from people who usually are either not interested or so cynical they don’t bother.  In the main, this is his crowd.  Now, let me add that this is not his entire crowd; I am sure there are a lot of responsible people caught up with this unorthodox politician.  These people have responsible complaints, but there is the other portion. 

The other portion find Trump saying the right (no, at times, extreme right) things.  It is almost like a dog whistle going off.  It is that citizen who has been mis-served by our efforts in our civics classrooms.  And with that, I end this review of why we need to change civics and government instruction.

NUMBER ONE?

One of the factors I addressed some years ago in this blog was that our crime rates, as measured by incarceration numbers, indicated we need to do a better job in our civics classrooms.  One good bit of information on this front is a lowering crime rate.  For example, the rate of victims per 1,000 population has dropped in the US from 51.7 in 1979 to 15 in 2010.[1]  Yet before we celebrate, there are other relevant numbers.  Another statistical site offers the following:

Total persons brought into formal contact with the police and/or criminal justice system, all crimes in 2011 (top ten nations)

United States         12,408,899 with a population of 322 million (38.58 per 1,000)

Germany              2,112,843 with a population of 81 million (26.08 per 1,000)

France                   1,172,547 with a population of 67 million (17.5 per 1,000)

Russian Fed.         1,041,340 with a population of 147 million (7.08 per 1,000)

Italy                      900,870 with a population of 61 million (14.77 per 1,000)

Canada                 688,920 with a population of 36 million (19.14 per 1,000)

Chile                     611,322 with a population of 18 million (33.96 per 1,000)

Poland                  521,942 with a population of 38 million (13.74 per 1,000)

Spain                    377,965 with a population of 46 million (8.22 per 1,000)

Netherlands           372,305 with a population of 17 million (21.9 per 1,000)[2]

Whether one is looking at total numbers or rate numbers, the US does not fare well when compared to other countries.  I will point out that the above list of countries varies in terms of reported freedom as opposed to repression.  Whether a nation is ruled by a liberal regime as opposed to an authoritarian regime is relevant to how levels of criminality are measured. 

The closest country in terms of rate is Chile.  Chile is a Latin country and an example of a nation that has a culture, described by Daniel Elazar, as one that harbors an anarchistic individualism.  This blog has argued that we, the US, started out with a more federalist sense of individualism, one that “recognized the subtle bonds of partnership linking individuals even as they preserve their individual integrities... .”[3]  This blog has also argued that our nation, especially since World War II, has abandoned a federalist view, at least as a prominent perspective of governance and politics, and has shifted to a natural rights view.  This latter construct is noted for its individualism.  These numbers are but one indicator of how far that shift has made itself known.

Criminality can be seen as a higher degree of incivility.  I reported earlier that a low level of civility is a definite social problem.  By historical standards, it is difficult to determine whether incivility is more or less acute today.  But numbers like these on criminality and other numbers I have reported in this blog indicate that a general lack of civility has been an ongoing concern among certain journalistic and academic sources.  Summarily, one can describe this concern as follows:

Civility in America continues to erode and rude behavior is becoming our “new normal,” according to the fourth annual study on Civility in America:  A Nationwide Survey, conducted by global public relations firm Weber Shandwick and public affairs firm Powell Tate in partnership with KRC Research.[4]

Irrespective of how relatively severe the problem of incivility or, in its more severe manifestation, criminality, is today, it is definitely a problem that should be addressed in our schools, not only as one other topic, but as a concern central to the mission of civics education.  And as for over-zealous policy in terms of drugs – we Americans have laws against drugs that are unreasonable and ruining lives – we know other crimes are downplayed.  As I write these words, the nation is being told that there are under-reported cases and under-addressed cases of ignored, sexual abuse cases against women in the military and on college campuses.  Whether such meager attention outnumbers cases of long prison sentences for drug crimes, I don't know.  But I do know that no one is claiming that people are readily going to jail and prison for legal behaviors and, as I reported before in this blog, America’s prison population outnumbers that of any other country by far.  This indicates that whether our laws are overly zealous or not, one can safely believe we can do a better job when it comes to educating our youth in terms of the law and in having respect for the law, not to mention behaving with more civility.

---

[1] Of course, this reflects reported crime events.  Whether people in general are more prone to report crime is an interesting question.  I do not know the answer to that question.  There is an array of statistical information readily available supporting this overall picture of a falling crime rate.  See https://www.google.com/search?q=crime+rates+in+US+over+time&espv=2&biw=1093&bih=514&tbm=isch&imgil=P4g2P-obB-jlRM%253A%253BcPni19546Kal8M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.gallup.com%25252Fpoll%25252F150464%25252Famericans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx&source=iu&pf=m&fir=P4g2P-obB-jlRM%253A%252CcPni19546Kal8M%252C_&usg=__zxIEm18APlIHiED8D3gsYadxZL4%3D&ved=0CCcQyjdqFQoTCJeJut67-ccCFcY8PgodmAwJGA&ei=NUj4VdeaD8b5-AGYmaTAAQ#imgrc=P4g2P-obB-jlRM%3A&usg=__zxIEm18APlIHiED8D3gsYadxZL4%3D .

[2] Maps of the World, see www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html .

[3] Elazar, D. J.  (1994).  How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly.  In a booklet of readings, Readings for classes taught by Professor Elazar, (pp. 1-30) prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.  Quotation from pp. 10-11.

[4]See http://www.webershandwick.com/news/article/civility-in-america-2013-incivility-has-reached-crisis-levels.  A 2014 report further supports the findings of this account; see https://www.webershandwick.com/news/article/civility-in-america-2014-forecast-bleak-but-with-hope-for-millennials .

KNOWING ENOUGH?

Let me begin this posting with an acknowledgement that today marks the fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  We shall never forget the sacrifice of so many Americans who lost their lives on that sorrowful day.  May the families of those victims take comfort in the knowledge that this nation commemorates that sacrifice.

Back in November 10, 2010, I wrote a posting that combined concerns over a lack of both political knowledge and social capital.  I made the point that while I had, to that point in this blog, reported on low levels of political knowledge among American students, there was research that favorably compared the knowledge of American kids to that of youngsters in other countries.  I also made the assertion that there is a link between political participation and political knowledge; that is, there is an obvious educational result from people gaining the experience of actual political work.  In trying to update information I used in those early postings, I do have one more recent study, but before relating it, let me point out that gauging how knowledgeable US students are or how knowledgeable their adult counterparts are is dicey at best.  One can give knowledge tests, but you might shortchange what political knowledge a person tested has by “missing” that knowledge in the questions one asks.  So, in this update – of sorts – let me just qualify what I am reporting by making this point:  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.

The only meaningful study I can add to the earlier reporting is one conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014.[1]  They found the following:

(Paraphrasing the questions, the percent of respondents getting the questions correct, and the correct answer)

·        What is the federal minimal wage?  73% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  $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:  Liberia.

·        What is the name of Israel’s prime minister?  38% of respondents got it correct.  The right answer:  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:  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:  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?  These are useful questions about which I can only speculate.  I do know that the state of our politics today and how general political issues are discussed and argued about, at least in how the media portray that process, give one concern.  When you have a candidate for president who is leading in the polls and is accused by other candidates as being a non-serious candidate, questions of how knowledgeable the general public is pop up.  The above numbers are interesting.  Distressful are the results on the questions concerning the unemployment rate, FED chairperson, government spending, and poverty line.  These questions reflect how well our nation is 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.  I believe that these numbers reflect poorly on not just how we as a people are involved, but on the educational efforts in civics and government to promote that involvement.

---

[1] See http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/02/from-isis-to-unemployment-what-do-americans-know/ .

MISSING THE RIGHT KIND OF CONSISTENCY

One problem characterizing the American electorate has been the level of inconsistency in its political opinions.  We see this, for example, in voter opinions as expressed in exit polling surveys; that is, voters express opinions that are logically inconsistent.  Some time ago, I citied the following:

... voters have contradictory feelings … A majority agreed that the government was doing too many things that are better left to businesses and individuals … [but] 47 percent of voters said Congress should leave the [national health] law as it is or expand it, and 48 percent said Congress should repeal it.  Not exactly a ringing mandate to repeal it.

When people were asked what the highest priority of the next Congress should be, 37 percent said "spending to create jobs," which was only slightly behind the 39 percent who said "reducing the budget deficit."  And only four in 10 voters said they wanted Congress to extend the Bush era tax cuts for everyone, including families who earn more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, as Republicans want to do. [1] [I would like to note that extending the tax cuts, by all accounts, would have driven the national deficit significantly higher.]

Of course, we don’t see ideal citizenship as one in which voters need to be cast in the dye liberals or conservatives.  One can have mixed views and still be seen as a responsible, clear thinking voter.  The problem occurs when a voter holds mutually exclusive positions or positions that are logically inconsistent with each other.  But there is another side to this concern.  What if a voter is purely liberal or conservative to the point that he doesn’t entertain opposing positions merely because they are offered by those in the other camp?  Is this characterization one that can be levied against our citizenry?

The context of this question is the level of American participation in political and civic activities.  That is, engagement is a motivator, a reason for holding political views in the first place.  A 2013 Pew Research Center study[2] which relied on an extensive telephone survey found that 48% of adults had engaged in a civic group or activity in the preceding year.  They also found:

§  35% of American adults have recently worked with fellow citizens to solve a problem in their community

§  22% have attended a political meeting on local, town, or school affairs

§  13% have been active members of a group that tries to influence the public or government

§  10% have attended a political rally or speech

§  7% have worked or volunteered for a political party or candidate

§  6% have attended an organized protest[3]

These numbers do not describe an actively engaged citizenry.  If we add to these figures the percentage of registered voters who actually voted in the last national election – the off-year elections of 2014 – the picture is dire; that was a turnout of roughly 33%.  Given that non-participating citizens reflect a lack of concern over political matters, they tend to be less knowledgeable about politics and governmental policy.  It is, therefore, no surprise that that segment would express higher degrees of inconsistency in its political beliefs and opinions. 

I will more directly address political and governmental knowledge in my next posting, but as for the issue of consistency, what can be said about those who are engaged?  What level of consistency is noted by those who do participate in our political arena?

To answer these questions, a look at another Pew Research Center study[4] is helpful.  Its overall conclusion is that the active US electorate has become extremely polarized in its political opinions.  Here, the problem is not a lack of consistency, but the opposite.  The study offers a long list of statistics which point to this polarization.  Our political class is more intolerant of opposing positions and extends its dislike of those who hold those positions into other social realms of life.  This refers to the inclusion and exclusion of those with whom these citizens want to socialize and with whom they want their relatives to marry.  These opinions can even affect where people live.  The one stat that is most telling, in my opinion, is the following:  “[t]oday, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.”[5]  This is not an ideal situation.

Ideally, what we want is a citizen who is knowledgeable and engaged, but who should be open to discussion, apt to have his/her mind changed if the facts warrant it, and is also accepting and seeks out those with whom he/she disagrees.  Oh yes, and while not compromising basic values, one who is willing and able to engage in compromise.  The polarization that the Pew Research Center reports is far from this ideal. 

This all points to a citizenry that can be characterized as belonging to one or another extreme camp; that is, between those who don’t care about politics and government or those who counterproductively care too vehemently.  In either case, federalist principles are what are being discarded.  The federalist ideal is upheld where those engaged see the arena between adversaries as a disagreement between partners who understand that, at least in the long run, their interests coincide.

---

[1]Cooper, M. (2010). Parsing the myths of the midterm elections, New York Times (November 6). Retrieved from the Internet: http://nytimes.com/2010/11/6/us/politics/06myths.html?_r=&hp .

[2] See Civic engagement in a digital age, http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/ .

[3] Ibid.

[4] See Political polarization in the American public, http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ .

[5] Ibid.

ECONOMIC SEGREGATION

I am currently, in this blog, revisiting the issue of how and to what extent civics education is falling short of what we should expect from that portion of our schools’ curricula.  The purpose is to update information I reported years ago when this blog was new.  Times change and the problems identified in 2010 might be different today.  One such problem has to do with economic conditions and, as I wrote back then, this might seem like a stretch to you –the relationship between the economy and civics education – but I don’t think so.

When considering economic conditions, I find it helpful to recall a concept that might initially sound unrelated to the hard numbers associated with economic activity.  That concept is social capital.  I was introduced to this idea by reading Robert D. Putnam.[1]  His definition of the concept – a bit paraphrased – is:  a societal quality characterized as having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation; it speaks to communal bonds and cooperative interactions.  Summarily, this concept refers to a citizenry that has adopted a meaningful degree of selflessness.  I have written about the republican spirit that spurred our founding governing principles and its inclusion of such selflessness, and yet what we are experiencing today is a social environment in which we see increasing levels of selfishness and narcissism.[2]

Economically, we have had increasing levels of income and wealth disparity and this trend has been growing since I initially wrote about it in this blog.  A more recent academic work is Putnam’s just published book, Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis.[3]  Due to the economic trends which had their origins in the 1970s, but increased in their pace of development during the 1980s, what we as a citizenry have accomplished is an ever increasing level of economic segregation even within racial and ethnic groups.  The overall trend has been population shifts toward either upper income or lower income resulting in a depopulation of the middle.  This has led to a high degree of economic and social segregation between these economic classes.  Consequently, we are not only lacking in social capital, but also are creating the social dynamics that will make it almost impossible to sustain any social infrastructure that would support it.

Therefore, we can expect in the coming years and decades less public-spirited citizenry, less equality in terms of both economic factors – such as opportunity – and political factors, and less trust and cooperation.  We will most likely experience weakening communal bonds and increased animosity between economic segments of the economy.  Reflective of this economic backdrop, our politics will likely become even more bizarre and antagonistic.  I will not be surprised if this antagonism takes on a more organized form.  With social media as a resource, one can imagine an organized and militant response by disadvantaged groups.  My point back then and still today is that we are reaping what we sowed.  And most telling is what Putnam points out: that most Americans are only semi-conscious of these developments.  They are simply not being instructed as to these socioeconomic developments.  They know that things are not as good as they used to be, but they have little understanding of what is actually taking place. 

To illustrate his points, Putnam writes of two kids who live miles apart, one a product of an advantaged family, the other of a disadvantaged situation – I can’t even use the term “family” to describe his home life.  Despite their proximity to each other, there is little to no chance they will ever have any contact with each other.  This is desperately different from the social world Putnam grew up in back in the 1950s.  In that earlier world, his high school had kids from differing social and economic classes.  The level of interaction among the different segments of the student body was healthy and often.  This is not so true today and the level of such interaction is becoming more and more infrequent.  For one thing, poorer kids are stuck in dysfunctional schools while richer kids are more apt to attend private schools.  The “indivisibility” of our nation is becoming a memory.  We need to address this development and our economic metrics need to account for the cost factors caused by our neglect of such segregation.

---

[1] Putnam, R. D.  (1995).  Bowling alone:  America's declining social capital.  Journal of Democracy, January, pp. 65-78.

[2] Also see Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York, NY: Free Press.

[3] Putnam, R. D.  (2015).  Our kids:  The American dream in crisis.  New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster.

STILL BOWLING SOLO

It has been a few years since I started this blog.  Early on, I felt it necessary to outline the shortcomings of civics education in American schools.  This was done in order to provide you, the reader, some sense of what was motivating this blog.  Through the years, it has been my perceptions of the ongoing conditions within this field that have guided what I wrote.  It has occurred to me that since conditions never remain static, it would be a responsible step to revisit these observations and see if the literature of more recent vintage indicates a change.  Perhaps the conditions I reported in 2010 have been addressed and are not as virulent as they were back then.  I would hasten to say that if that were the case, it would have been reported extensively by the news.  I would state that one condition has been reported upon and that reporting has indicated that the condition has improved – more on this in a future posting.

In order to give you this update, I am dedicating the next few postings to this effort.  I will remind you of the specific deleterious conditions I reported back then and then give more current research concerning each condition.  But this particular posting will give an overview of how well civics education is doing and I will rely on a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) just published in 2015.  Below, I quote a segment of the Executive Summary of the report and then comment on it. 

Here is the Summary’s main overall finding:

For more than 250 years, Americans have shared a vision of a democracy in which all citizens understand, appreciate, and engage actively in civic and political life.  In recent decades, however, increasing numbers of Americans have disengaged from civic and political institutions such as voluntary associations, religious congregations, community-based organizations, and political and electoral activities such as voting and being informed about public issues.  Young people reflect these trends:  they are less likely to vote and are less interested in political discussion and public issues than either their older counterparts or young people of past decades.  As a result, many young Americans may not be prepared to participate fully in our democracy now and when they become adults.[1]

This summary statement could not mirror more closely my overall judgement of civics education when I addressed it back in 2010.

Back then, I made a point of sharing with you the description of citizen involvement and its evolvement from the earliest times of our republic.  I used a lengthy account by the writer Alexis de Tocqueville.  His is a vivid telling of how Americans readily partook in animated and engaged discussion over the issues of that day.  Foremost were discussions over local civic projects and developments.  The firsthand report was written in the 1830s.  While I questioned how accurate the account was, I presented it as at least a reasonable depiction if not a truthful vision of how Americans were involved.  I also presented it as an ideal which I felt our civics instruction should use to guide our efforts in promoting good citizenship.  It is gratifying to see that the NCSL shares this commitment.  Not so gratifying is the organization’s agreement that since those early days, we have not been so effective in maintaining this level of engagement. 

The time dimension referred to in the citation coincides with mine in that the Summary mentions how in the last several decades there has been a meaningful downturn in levels of engagement not only in terms of politics and government, but also in the more civil pursuits such as working with community-based organizations.  One of my main points in my early writings was to date our turn to a natural rights perspective as a dominant view in the years just following World War II.  That more current view emphasizes a more individualistic social stance in which main concerns are over self-defined goals and aims.  This transition from a more community based populous to a more self-centered one did not happen overnight, but was the product of several trends starting almost as soon as the ink on the Constitution of 1787 was dry.  However, the big transfer from a traditional federalist view, the view that dominated to that point, to the natural rights view has happened since 1945.

Again, my efforts in the upcoming postings will be to give you an update on the conditions facing civics education.  From this first entry, we can already tell that things have not gotten much better and perhaps even worse.

---

[1] National Conference of State Legislatures (2015).  The civic mission of schools.  Executive Summary.  Dever, CO:  National Conference of State Legislatures.  Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/trust-for-representative-democracy/the-civic-mission-of-schools-executive-summary.aspx , a website.