May 2004

Civic Education for a World at War

The basic questions about the importance and role of civic education are similar to those faced by previous generations.  In preparing our children for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship today, what lessons should we learn from attempts to reinvigorate civic education in earlier times of international conflict?  At a May 18 AEI conference, education scholars examined the role of civic education in America's schools.

Jeffrey Mirel
University of Michigan

In some ways my paper presents a cautionary tale about how difficult it has been to create high quality civic education programs in American high schools.  Throughout the twentieth century, educators have answered questions about the kind of civic education American schools should offer based on which side they took in the long-running debate between traditional and progressive education.  Should civic educators prioritize intellectual skills and mastery of liberal arts? Or, should educators address the needs of the "whole child," including such aspects of human development as social and emotional adjustment? Given the intimate relationship between civic education and the survival of American democracy, curricular choices in civic education are uniquely consequential and play an important role in the life and future of the nation.

The Challenge to Civic Education in the Depression Era

Political and educational leaders quickly recognized in the 1930s that young people posed a challenge to the nation, especially as fascist and communist organizations used the economic crisis to promote their doctrines and recruit new members.  The best picture of the condition of youth during the Depression era of the 1930s is a study done in 1938 by Howard Bell.  Bell found that nearly a third of the young people surveyed were deeply cynical about electoral democracy, yet mixed with this cynicism was a strong desire for greater governmental action. 

Ultimately it was the nation's high schools that served as the main institution for dealing with the problems of young people.  As the threat of world war grew in the late 1930s, educational leaders addressed the problem of how to prepare virtually all American young people for their roles as citizens in a democracy.  The clash between the academically rich programs and the belief that most American students could not handle such programs would have profound consequences for the course of civic education in this era.

The Youth Problem and Civic Education in Detroit

In 1945, the Detroit Public Schools were given $425,000 to study civic education.  Stanley Dimond, supervisor of social studies education for the school district, directed the study.  Beyond its importance as the best picture we have of civic education in the early Cold War era, the Detroit Citizenship Education Study demonstrates the tensions inherent in efforts to inculcate democratic ideals, values, and attitudes in American high schools.

Dimond identified five distinct approaches to civic education: the cultural approach (i.e., "Democracy is learned as a byproduct of growing up in a particular culture"); the emotional appeals approach (i.e., "Democracy is taught through emotional appeals" such as flag ceremonies and singing the national anthem); the intellectual understanding approach (i.e., "Democracy is learned by an intellectual process," the only specifically discipline-based approach); the democratic participation approach (i.e., "Democracy is learned through participation in activities where one can act democratically," such as in student government); and, the mental health approach (i.e., "Democracy is acquired most readily by those who have good mental health").

Of the school-based approaches, he found that only the intellectual understanding approach produced impressive changes. However, the conclusion of the study veered off in a totally different direction.  According to the major recommendation of the study, the key to good citizenship is emotional adjustment.

Like most educational leaders, they assumed that the majority of students in high school could not handle challenging course material in civics, history, or in any other subject area related to citizenship education.  They believed that emotional and mental adjustment were necessary prerequisites for good citizenship and that forcing students to do work beyond their alleged ability levels invariably led to maladjustment.  By making everything a potential lesson in good citizenship, Dimond opened the very real possibility of trivializing the entire enterprise.  Teaching teenagers good manners is not the same as teaching them how to have an intense but civil debate with someone over a crucial political issue, drawing upon solid historical or political background knowledge.

Challenges of Civic Education Today

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has found itself again at war.  The context is quite different from in the past, but the basic questions about the nature and content of civic education remain virtually unchanged since the 1930s and 1940s.  Given the viciousness of the new enemies, we must dispel the complacency that has settled over our schools regarding civic education.  We must be clear and explicit when teaching students what democracy is, why it is a rare and special system of government and social life, and how it differs from the new totalitarian doctrines that threaten our existence.

Lynne V. Cheney
AEI

The Detroit Citizenship Education Study is very revealing about progressive educators.  Progressive educators had a whole belief system in which the intellectual approach method was not the obvious answer to teaching civic education. It is interesting that when the study did not go the way Dimond thought it would, he just ignored what research showed so that he could proceed in the same belief paradigm. This is not unique in the history of education. Perhaps the most well-known study in the history of education was Project Follow Through, conducted in the 1970s. Project Follow Through compared various educational methods and determined that the most effective curriculum was one in which teachers taught students basic skills in a highly organized way and used drills and instant feedback to make sure they were mastering each step. Again, this experiment produced results that were at odds with the progressive paradigm.

Progressives believed then, as indeed they do now, that creativity and love of learning are stifled and stunted in such an orderly environment. There was an immediate and sustained attack on the results of Project Follow Through. Eventually it would evolve into an attack on research itself.  By the 1990s the scientific perspective in education was being described as elitist, a tool deployed by the powerful to consolidate their influence. In the year 2000, the head of the American Educational Research Association declared standardized testing, one of the most important tools of educational research, to be evil.

Jeff Mirel's presentation pointed out a long trend in our history that is relevant today in many ways. One of the caveats that I might offer is that while it is important to emphasize content, it will not necessarily get the job done in a way that will provide children and future teachers with the storehouse of knowledge and judgment they need to understand our history and convey it to others.  Due to some of the textbooks in use right now, it is possible to teach history in the wrong way.  One would hope history is taught in a way that emphasizes the bad and the good.  I do think there is a tendency to emphasize the bad instead of the good.  Classrooms should present the whole of our national stories.

William Galston
University of Maryland

Professor Mirel offers us what is in many ways a familiar plot line. There is a crucial debate between the traditionalist and progressives in education.  That narrative raises some interesting issues that need to be disentangled. If democracy and elitism are understood to be antithetical, than a very interesting question arises: who are the real elitists? Are they the progressives that say some kids cannot learn and because the group that cannot learn is larger than the group that can learn, we need a smorgasbord education policy? Or, the traditionalist who says there is a single curriculum that is applicable to all students? My sympathies are on the side of the traditionalists in this matter, and those sympathies are fortified by my study of Catholic schools. The secret to the academic and civic success of the Catholic schools is the common curriculum, a path upon which all students walk (some more quickly than others.)

There are limitations and strengths of a vigorous intellectual approach to civic education. There is a substantial new research base in support of the proposition that civic knowledge is linked to the development of a democratic disposition, skills, and beliefs. But, I think it is important not to emphasize the intellectual content of civic education at the expense of other key dimensions. I would not underestimate the importance of civic sentiment and civic rituals which cannot be reduced to the intellectual content of civic education, nor would I underestimate the influence of growing up in a democratic society or acculturation. Unfortunately, civic and historical ignorance is not new; the question is how consequential is it and in what context.  Knowledge and critical thinking are necessary but not sufficient for civic education. There is also an element of advocacy, imposition, or indoctrination. What does that mean for us?

Civic education is not the same thing as liberal education. The aim of liberal education is truth; the aim of civic education is loyalty. One can hope--but not presume--that the two are highly congruent. The idea of indoctrination makes many Americans uncomfortable. We have to think a lot harder about the claims of truth and the demands of loyalty.

There is a practical problem that I am compelled to bring before the body. The Civic Mission of Schools Report demonstrated that in the last thirty years the median number of civic courses in high schools has gone down by two-thirds. The fear in the civic education community is that the No Child Left Behind Act could complete the job. The reason for that fear is NCLB's focus on core academic subjects. This focus will perhaps act to the disadvantage of civic education. That was not the intention of the authors of NCLB, nor is it an objection to the Act itself. But it is a serious practical problem that is being reported by civic educators throughout the country.

AEI staff assistant Emily Kluver prepared this summary.