“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it.”
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)
These two statements provide vivid evidence of an education crisis in America. Knowledge about and confidence in our civic institutions are at critically low levels.
“Civics” is generally defined as the study of the structure and institutions of government and of the rights and responsibilities of citizens therein. Such studies have been an essential component of civilization from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome until now.
In 19th century United States, Horace Mann championed civics instruction in a free public system as necessary to unify heterogeneous groups of students. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, educational theorists, progressive John Dewey most notable among them, expanded on the notion, adding the importance of learning through relevant experience rather than merely learning factual information.
Through the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, civics and/or government studies were curricular staples, focusing primarily on passively learning the structures and mechanisms of government along with obligatory pledges and patriotic songs. It is of some cognitive interest to note that the lyrics and melodies of my 1950s and ’60s patriotic songs proved far more durable than any constitutional knowledge, demonstrating both the power of music and the essential role of learning through experience.
Beginning in the late ’60s, civics education was merged into or supplanted by a more generic social studies curriculum. This was due in part to divisive skepticism about democratic institutions, sharpened by the Vietnam war and unrest over civil rights. In the years since, civics education has waxed and waned. In recent decades the Annenberg Public Policy Center has surveyed civics knowledge and the results have revealed an alarming and precipitous decline, with a very slight uptick in the last two years.
Lauren Boebert is far from alone.
In a recent interview, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) said, “Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn’t set up that way. You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive.”
A mock exam conducted by The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation in 2018 revealed that two-thirds of Americans could not pass the United States Citizenship Test. Even worse, 81% of those under age 45 failed.
Sixty percent don’t know how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. Only 24% know why the colonists fought the British. And just for humor, 2% believe climate change caused the Cold War.
The statistical evidence of decline is accompanied and exacerbated by a deepening ideological chasm and a persistent attack on the public education system itself. The ideological rift is illustrated by the contrasting approaches embodied in the 1619 Project and the 1776 Curriculum.
The 1619 Project is based on a book by Nikole Hannah-Jones with a related curriculum promoted by The New York Times. The 1619 Project aims to “. . . reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States.”
The 1776 Curriculum was generated by the ultra-conservative Hillsdale College as a response to the 1619 Project. The 1776 Curriculum rejects the premises of the 1619 Project and seeks to reassert the idea of American Exceptionalism and to relegate slavery and racism to a sidebar in a grand and noble narrative.
A major presence on the ideological battlefield, Hillsdale College is behind a mushrooming network of Hillsdale Classical Schools. There are now 70 or so with ambitious expansion plans. This statement from their website makes their position clear:
“However, in so many of our educational institutions today, instead of studying Euclid, Locke, Shakespeare, Churchill, Lewis, or Reagan, we educate our students about microaggressions, cultural appropriation, victimhood, gender identification, safe spaces, and the like.”
For those who continue to live on the margins of American society, high minded language about virtue and nobility provides little hope that conservative civics education will address the need for equity in a diverse society.
With no intent to directly associate Hillsdale schools with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, this paragraph from a recent New York Times article is amusingly apt.
“Starting in first grade, students across Russia will soon sit through weekly classes featuring war movies and virtual tours through Crimea. They will be given a steady dose of lectures on topics like ‘the geopolitical situation’ and ‘traditional values.’ In addition to a regular flag-raising ceremony, they will be introduced to lessons celebrating Russia’s “rebirth” under President Vladimir V. Putin.”
Substitute “United States” for “Russia,” delete “virtual tours through Crimea,” and change “Russia’s ‘rebirth’ under President Vladimir V. Putin” to “Making America Great Again under President Donald J. Trump.”
“Starting in first grade, students across the United States will soon sit through weekly classes featuring war movies. They will be given a steady dose of lectures on topics like ‘the geopolitical situation’ and ‘traditional values.’ In addition to a regular flag-raising ceremony, they will be introduced to lessons celebrating Making America Great Again under President Donald J. Trump.”
Civics education can prepare children or indoctrinate children. The difference matters.
If we are to believe, as Horace Mann implored us, that public education must be a unifying force that establishes a common foundation from which to exercise self-governance, we are in deep trouble.
If we are this profoundly divided on the truth of our past it is difficult to imagine unity on the possibilities for our future.