civic education

CIRCLE has a post today exploring the difference in reasons college youth and non-college youth give for not voting.

Peter Levine notes that data about voting is notoriously suspect given its ambiguity and the potential for people to withhold their actual behavior.

However, we do see that college-attending non-voters attribute their lack of participation to not being home on Election Day, while their non-college-attending, non-voting peers cite a distrust that their vote will carry any impact.

Of course, the question I am left with is how do we get students to believe in the power of their vote, to commit to voting somewhere whether that's at home or at college, and to actually do the deed. In a post on Monday articulating a ten point plan for renewal, Levine puts forth a vision for how we might start this work.

4. Prepare a new generation of active and responsible citizens. People form attitudes and habits related to civil society when they are young and keep them for the rest of their lives. But civic education has been cut in most school systems, and there are too few opportunities for young people to learn through service and extracurricular activities. Congress should revive the small Learn & Serve America program that provides competitive grants for service-learning, eliminated in 2011 after 21 years of work. Congress should also restore funding for civic education in schools (eliminated in 2011), but direct the funds to organizations that test or expand innovative educational methods and rigorously evaluate their impact. Meanwhile, the Office of Civic Education within the U.S. Department of Education should be elevated from its current low status (within the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools) and given a leadership role in coordinating the civic education functions of all federal agencies, including the National Parks Service, the national endowment for the humanities and the arts, the Defense Department, and Homeland Security.

Restoring Learn & Serve America moves us in the right direction, while increasing the power and visibility of the Office of Civic Education sends a message that civic education isn't a joke. We need these steps, combined with many others, to build a foundation for our education system that cultivates civic responsibility among students. The problems in our society are large enough that we need as many people as possible--especially young people-- to be on board and willing to make tough decisions and worthy contributions toward our future.

Crossposted at Politics for the Common Good.

Rarely do I intentionally blend my graduate school lessons learned with the material discussed in this blog. I'm starting to realize that's a mistake.

As a graduate student in a Student Affairs in Higher Education program, I endeavor to eventually work on a college campus, encouraging students to mind their civic habits and responsibilities, while simultaneously teaching them about life throughout that journey. In order to fulfill graduation requirements for my masters program, I must work in an office on campus for twelve hours a week; such an experience usually involves creating some form of original work. In working with a leadership institute on campus, I have managed to perform my own bricolage, mixing two seemingly disparate elements together: politics and education. I have organized a series of discussions in which students having no knowledge of politics can contribute to a conversation, along with the political elite on campus, on what politics means to them. I guess one could metaphorically associate this effort with the training wheels needed for what is hopefully a life-long career marrying civic responsibility with education.

My motivation for pursuing what can be an all-too-frustrating task was initially selfish. I was a political science major. I didn't have the guts to denigrate characters in political attack ads or the logical skills needed to practice the law. I liked living and working on a college campus as an undergraduate. Voila. Student affairs allows me to straddle the line between politics and education.

But, as many a graduate student has come to know, this line I speak of is fictional. That's the lesson I have learned this year, perhaps nowhere better than these dialogues. Navigating a curriculum rooted in social constructivism, understanding that there is never a "right" answer, but merely socially-constructed knowledge, has sharpened my realization that politics is in everything we do. Yes, it's in presidential elections every four years. It is in the partisan bickering and strategizing that goes on in Washington. But it is also in fraternity and sorority elections. It is in where you get your coffee in the morning. It is in the choice of news you wish to consume. Politics is everywhere.

My experience with undergraduates at my former place of employment and my current institution reveals to me that I was not alone in seeing the line. Politics can be compartmentalized into a convenient box. Students associate politics with Washington DC, voting, Congress, and the like. In one of our political dialogues this month, one of the students expressed boredom with politics. "Whenever I see politics on TV I change the channel," they explained. "It's just not fun. I don't really want to get involved." Yet, the act of channelsurfing itself is political. They did get involved in their decision to forego public affairs programming.

Unfortunately that involvement was unseen, and small in magnitude. I am recognizing that while student affairs practitioners and scholars spend quite a bit of time on social justice education, we tend to spend less time on civic education, developing the set of tools needed to engage in one's community. While service-learning and voter registration drives have been trendy on college campuses over the last two presidential elections, engagement in local and state politics continues to suffer. It's no wonder students associate politics with dysfunctional Washington.

If we were to take a problem-solving approach in our student affairs practice, we might make some headway.

Embracing a problem-solving approach to learning would be appropriate if we seek to rid higher education of the “mind/body split” that compartmentalizes intellectual discussion from one’s public actions (hooks, 1994, p. 16). A problem-solving approach would require the construction of deep and sustainable relationships between student affairs educators and the rest of the faculty, staff, and administration; a problem-solving-based model would necessitate an emphasis on the common good, meaning that students would see departments and offices role model this approach by collectivizing agendas as much as possible and placing the institution’s mission (which would ideally emphasize problem-solving) above their own. In addition to the construction of strong relationships, a problem-solving approach would encourage student affairs educators to create Freirian relationships with students; with an emphasis on community problem-solving, student/teacher and teacher/student “learn from and teach each other” – “doing ‘with’ rather than ‘for’” (as cited in Manning 1994, p. 95).

In this model, collaboration is the name of the game. The common good is at the heart of this effort, with problems uniting academic disciplines, student affairs staff, and students as opposed to egos, departments that are siloed off from each other, and disengaged students. To get here, we do need to re-examine our social justice efforts.

In order to face society’s problems today, our students must first begin the process of understanding and exploring their identity, their values, and how they view difference. In addition, the educational nature of problem-solving demands from students the ability to see an issue from another’s perspective. Following these tough lessons, students also need to learn about power and privilege, the source of many of the problems our students will be trying to solve.

Politics does not have to be perceived as a bad thing. The derivation of the word -- “polis” is the Greek word for a city or state, thus “politikos,” or politics, means affairs/issues of the city/state -- is hardly negative. However, college students unfortunately associate the broken system currently in Washington with politics; consequently, "politics" gets a bad name and other, more positive opportunities for political engagement become invisible. With just a bit more effort, student affairs practitioners can reveal the other side of politics -- civil conversations, learning from others, changing their realities to help themselves and others -- and align programs with our institutions' "citizenship"-laden mission statements.

Many educational scholars and practitioners argue the importance of civic responsibility in higher education. With the outcome of students learning how to be good citizens in focus, colleges and universities talk a great deal about fostering an appreciation of social responsibility and civic engagement on their campuses, with some institutions doing more than others.

A survey released this week by the Assocation of American Colleges and Universities as a part of its Core Commitments initiative reflects the importance with which civic responsibility is viewed among students, faculty, and staff, but points to a large split between what students perceive to be happening in the way of civic education on campus versus the faculty, staff, and administration's view.

Here are some of the survey's findings:

There is a Gap Between Campus Aspirations and Campus Realities.

While 58 percent of students surveyed strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community should be a major focus of their institutions, only 41.5 percent strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community currently is a major focus at their college or university.

Campuses are Perceived as Promoting the Value of Community Involvement but Fewer Agree that Their Campus Actually Advances Students’ Knowledge and Awareness of Public Issues.

About half of all faculty and 45 percent of students strongly agree that their campus promotes the value of contributing to the community. Only 37.7 percent of faculty and 40.4 percent of students strongly agree that their campus actively promotes awareness of U.S. social, political, and economic issues.

Student Skepticism About Campus Focus on Civic Engagement Grows From First to Final Years.

The percentage of students who strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community is a responsibility that their campus values and promotes declines markedly from first to senior year. The number of seniors who “strongly agree” that their campus actively promotes awareness of social, political, and economic issues is roughly one-half of first-year students who “strongly agree” with that statement.

Campuses Offer Opportunities to Become Civically Engaged, but Few Students Take Advantage of Them.

About half of all students strongly agreed that their institutions offer opportunities for contributing to the larger community, but only one out of five (18.9 percent) students report frequent participation in community-based projects as part of their coursework. One in four (25.6 percent) report frequent participation in community-based projects that are unconnected to their courses.

The main message here is that saying and doing are two different things.

Yes, institutions like to use language like "civic engagement," "civic responsibility," "social responsibility," "engagement," and the like, and while some actually do put into practice these values, the reality is that the higher ed system doesn't reward it. Faculty actually lack the necessary incentives to incorporate civic education into their classrooms given the weight of published work in the tenure process. Student affairs educators are bound by time and the legitimate fear untenured faculty have of engaging in this style of learning. And as a result, students don't believe colleges and universities are providing them with the civic responsibility they are expecting. Unless we have a culture of intentionality and a structure encouraging authentic, collaborative learning among students, I believe those of us working/studying in higher education are always going to be stuck in this divide.

Students acknowledge there are opportunities present to connect to a "larger community" in their current experience, but their concept of a "larger community" apparently does not match the institution's. Perhaps the structure of the academy is holding itself and students back from properly teaching the importance of civic education to college students.

Haven't done one of these in a while, but there's enough reading material to warrant a quick hits post. So here goes:

• Millennials - What is your plan for the future? Inquiring minds want to know.
• Dean: We need youth involved in health care debate
• UCF Symposium to Focus on Challenges, Opportunities for Millennials in New Economy
• Rick Santorum - The next voice of the GOP? God, I hope so.
• A problem with youth activists is that we sometimes create organizations that replicate mission statements of other organizations. Think twice before starting a non-profit.
• Students believe their colleges aren't giving them enough civic education (even though colleges believe they are).
• If you wear baggy pants and a hoodie, you're apparently a thief.

Analysts are still trying to measure the impact of social media on the 2008 election. Some are resorting to non-random sampling [gasp!]. The Illinois State University student paper covers one such study.

A Kansas State University study by three graduate students finds that the 18 to 24 year old demographic became increasingly politically active during the 2008 U.S. Election season due to the use of new media, but were not necessarily more politically knowledgeable.

The study surveyed more than 160 undergraduate students, with no indication of their political party, about their use of traditional media as well as new media sources, such as Twitter or YouTube, to obtain information about the presidential campaign.

The sample size is very small here, although the focus of the study is interesting. Political knowledge is a messy metric when it is conflated with current events and we will be unable to gauge the relevance of this measure without the survey instrument.

The study also found that most students were not politically knowledgeable, with no idea of whether or not the student was a Democrat or Republican. Darnisha Monson, junior English education major, found herself to be one of the many students who became actively involved in the 2008 election.

This isn't surprising since young people who are new to the electoral process are still trying to find their way through the political landscape. Thus, it behooves partisans to outreach to youth during this exploratory period - it will be more difficult to persuade them to switch political parties later in life.

Now comes my favorite part of this article: an academic living in the university bubble and seemingly ignorant about it.

"That is the big question," Bradley said, "How do we get [college students] to turn out numbers in an election that is not tied directly to electing a president?"

This is totally not the big question. As we've written about here on FM, and as duly researched by CIRCLE, it's the college students we don't have to worry about. There is something about going to college, whether it be the networks or the the learning that aids these young people in navigating the political process. It doesn't matter that it takes time in some cases; the point is that youth with at least come college experience will be more engaged than those with any college. So, the big question is, if you care about realizing a full, participatory democracy is how do we reach the many young voters who don't attend college at all; they are the most likely to not vote and to not be civically engaged on a range of measures. As for the other part of his question, it is important to think about how to turnout voters during non-presidential cycles (one way might to be encourage more young people to run for elected office, especially the local level, as suggested by Kevin).

Professor Bradley continues to miss the mark with this:

"It is my job as a professor to figure out how to get your generation tuned into local politics, Bradley said.

"College students have a very short attention span so it is my job to keep [college students] interested... you are not going to learn."

Again, see the above retort. Additionally, it shouldn't the job of a professor to teach about civic engagement - it should be done at the high school level. This means we can reach as many young people before they leave mandatory schooling. At the Netroots Nation 2009 youth caucus meeting, I brought up the point that we (youth and civic organizations) are doing the work of the government for them. We educate young people about civic engagement, when that should be the aim of high school curriculum. What makes it so troublesome for us is that we spend time, money and staff on teaching the basics of democracy. If we had comprehensive civic education in high schools, then we could focus on actually persuading and informing citizens about specific issues that take a bit of expertise to understand.

As we move down the road toward big change in our energy and healthcare policies, there is an increasing number of calls for change in our education system. And I'm not referring to the cliched change we hear from every politician running for an office. I'm talking about actual, systemic change that many might consider radical.

Harry C. Boyte from the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship, housed in the university's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, wrote a post on Wednesday which referenced a few other works that, one by one, challenged integral parts of our education system, including our core philosophy as a country. Boyte rightly laments the increased specialization of our education system, in which students, once pursuing what they wish to pursue, are trained to silo themselves off from the rest of the academy. Boyte wants to return to "civic education."

How do we develop citizens and citizen leaders who work with others to solve problems and build a flourishing democratic society? This question, the heart of civic education, was once at the center of American schooling, from kindergarten through higher education. In recent decades it has been increasingly neglected. We are faced with the challenge of breaking out of gated communities of our minds and work identities that are as sharply drawn as those of our neighborhoods. In recent months, a growing number of leaders in higher education have called for far ranging change in our institutions to address this.

One of the pieces Boyte uses to support his argument is written by Mark Taylor, the chair of the religion department at Columbia University. Taylor trashes today's system of higher education in the United States, noting that the gap between today's academic specialists and the tools and knowledge needed to solve our largest problems is expanding at an alarming rate. Taylor calls for tenure to be abolished and for an end to the organization of academia by discipline. Instead, Taylor believes that we should produce a list of problems to conquer. Not afraid of generalities, Taylor offers his own example of a list: "Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water." Taylor envisions these problems as opportunities forcing academic disciplines to converge and use their special knowledge in collaborative actions as opposed to exclusive ones.

The reason I like this idea so much is why Boyte seems to dig it. Our capacity for solving large problems in this country is diluted because of the deterioration of civic thought. Developing citizenship and citizen leaders, as Boyte labels it above, seems to have flown under the radar of those formulating the curriculum and solidifying the structure of American education. Months into Obama's presidency, buzz surrounds the importance of service-learning and political engagement in the media. Fortunately, there are examples of the service piece of citizenship being taught and practiced within the classroom. But unfortunately, you'll notice that many of the examples journalists use of young people engaging in political activity cite college students who had to take time off school in order to participate. Young people had to be politically involved despite their education. Furthermore, there's a missed opportunity when service is not connected to politics: to serve is a political act. What's needed is the solidification of a link between education and patriotism/citizenship: to be educated is to be a problem-solver. This is why Barack Obama's line comparing dropping out of school to dropping out on one's country in his joint congressional speech in February was both effective and encouraging. By dropping out, someone is resigning themselves to allowing problems to overwhelm the country.

Education should be seen for what it is -- a public good. Education is not merely our supertrain to be used to catch up with China and India. Before we even entertain the thought of that, perhaps we need to know who we are as a people and how we can use the knowledge we gain to solve the gargantuan problems we face. Those designing our education system would be well-served to keep JFK's advice in their heads -- the education system should help us recognize and pursue what we can do for our country. It's common sense, but that is the change in higher education we need to see.