civics

Washington Post education columnist Jim Mathews decided to comment on the sudden controversy regarding President Obama's speech to the nation's schools. Mathews writes that he does not believe it is a good idea, not because of the standard reasons conservatives have stated, but because he believes it would inconvenience teachers too much.

If the president of the United States shows up at a school, as Obama will do at Wakefield, that is different. I also think class can be interrupted to view events certain to make the history books, like the landing on the moon or the inauguration of the first black president. But for most people, watching Obama on TV Tuesday can be done when students get home. Some channels will rerun it. Anyway, I think his speech would work better as an educational exercise in its written form, giving teachers a chance to have students edit it or reply to it. That will mean more writing time, essential if they are going to learn to handle words as well as Obama does.

First, let's be realistic. Are "most" parents going to sit their son or daughter down and have them watch the Obama speech? No, probably not. And if they do, are they going to get much out of it? Again, probably not. Yes, parents have a role to play in their son or daughter's education. But are they qualified to be teaching civics education? This is the kind of strategy we've been relying on the past few decades, as civics classes have been ripped out of curricula in favor of math and science. While young people today are more politically engaged, that didn't happen until 2003/2004. So this strategy hasn't exactly paid off.

So instead of gambling that parents would actually work with their student to get the most educational experience out of the President's speech, the teacher should absolutely have the responsibility of exercising his/her creativity and using the rare moment to educate outside the box. To get to most students today, you don't just place a written copy of the speech in front of them and tell them to respond on their own time to what the President said. In a world chock full of digital media, the written word should be accompanied by some kind of electronic vehicle to get to the heart of the educational material. Standard pedagogy that worked with Boomers isn't going to be effective with young people today. I'd ask Mathews why that teacher can't show the video of the speech in class (I don't think it necessarily has to be shown that day - on their own terms), accompany it with a written copy of the speech for those who do learn better textually, and use it to broach the subject of the presidency, that person's role in America, and perhaps discuss what this president was trying to tell them.

Finally, we come to the matter of role modeling. Our society harps on young students today not having the right role models to look up to anymore. Yet, when the President of the United States tries to offer a positive message to today's youth, it's not good enough.

This whole controversy is nonsense. Whether it's because he's the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, who is trying to do the job we hired him for, or because this is a great opportunity to teach children about our civic responsibilities using innovative pedagogies, I wholeheartedly support those schools who are embracing this rare opportunity.

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.

Some reading to go with your football, service-style.

• The Washington Post's piece on Millennial college grads choosing underpaid "vocations of service" as opposed to lucrative jobs.
• CauseWired -- a book by Tom Watson that examines the exploding "culture of giving" on the web -- is set to be released on November 10th. A preview of the foreword can be read here.
• A letter to the editor of the Jackson County Chronicle (WI) from a high school history and politics teacher explains why community support for civics education is so important. Good stuff.
• Like the idea of linking community service and politics in higher education? Check this out.
• Yesterday I wrote about the steps Florida is taking to reinstall civics education into its state education system. Here's a local newspaper article out of Kingston, NY with more examples of fusion between a multidisciplinary curriculum and politics/civics.
• More youth involvement in campaigns means more enthusiasm.
• More "youth vote" coverage -- this from the AP.
• Generational split in the Vietnamese-American vote; older Vietnamese-Americans staying faithful to GOP, but Millennials flocking to the Democratic Party.
• The Wall Street Journal covers the youth vote again and is not too bad. The last quote does show how out-of-touch Republicans are, though.

I consider myself privileged, especially with education. I went to a decent high school in a small town, supported by the community (the triviality of local politics aside). I have a great family that supported me throughout my college search process. And the search was a very successful one; after graduating from high school, I went to Meadville, Pennsylvania to attend Allegheny College, a great liberal arts college. But after having graduated from Allegheny, majoring in political science, I've come to realize that my privileged education would have been solidified with the opportunity to take a high school civics course. And while I benefited from Allegheny's great humanities and social science programs, others, especially minorities, are not as lucky.

Former senator and governor Bob Graham (D-FL) wrote an op-ed in the St. Petersburg Times about the poor state of civics education in the country and what Florida is doing, and should be doing more of, in order to foster further civic knowledge and participation among our youngest citizens.

Graham cites an obsession with political correctness and a "lack of institutional support" for the downward trend of civics education in middle schools and high schools. Schools de-emphasize civics, usually offering, at best, one optional civics course to students. In my own experience, my high school, that for years had an optional civics course and a course titled "Problems of Democracy," eliminated both by the time I reached high school age, renaming the latter "History of Government," and restructuring it to offer a more passive, backwards-looking view at our government. Such moves de-emphasize the participatory nature of our democracy at a time in our history when we should be capitalizing on the Millennial generation's willingness to be politically involved. Graham invokes Jefferson: "The objects of primary education … are to instruct the mass of citizens in these: their rights, interests, and duties as men and citizens … to understand his duties to his neighbors and country, and to discharge with competence the functions confided to him by either." We're missing a big opportunity.

So what is Florida doing about it?

The Florida Legislature has taken a first step. Today every middle school student is required to take one semester of civics. This summer a coalition of the Florida Bar, the League of Women Voters, the Lou Frey Institute of Politics at the University of Central Florida and the Bob Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida, with the generous support of the Helios Foundation, trained 133 middle school teachers to teach participatory democracy. More will be trained next summer.

Admittedly, our schools are being asked to educate students in everything from hygiene to driving a car. But there are creative ways to blend citizenship into other subjects. While an elementary student is learning the skills of reading, why not also start teaching him or her the content of American history? While high school chemistry students are focused on elements and compounds, wouldn't the course be more relevant if they also learned how science and civics have combined to make our air and water cleaner and safer?

Graham also argues that for all the controversy over the current standardized testing environment, the usual exclusion of civics from tests that always include reading, math, and science is a problem. With civics not emphasized on standardized tests, it usually does not appear on lesson plans in the classroom. Graham proposes civics be included in Florida's major statewide exam, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.

I wrote about this mainly because of Mike's call to arms published a few days ago. We absolutely need to be capitalizing on the heightened electoral participation this cycle by exploring innovative ways of educating today's students in civics in addition to math and science. I particularly like Florida's emphasis on middle school education; getting to students as young as possible sets the stage for a higher discourse in our high school education, and so forth.

This post is meant to contribute to a conversation that should be intensifying in the upcoming weeks as we come across a defining election in our nation's history. It's my hope that this intensity lasts well past this November, and that we step up our passion on this subject so that future students have an opportunity that I, and many others, did not have.