View full list of participants
A remarkable group of researchers, policymakers, journalists and
other leaders gathered in Washington, D.C., on May 3 for a
thoughtful, in-depth discussion of civic education in the United
States sponsored by the Albert Shanker Institute.
The conversation, led by AFT and Shanker Institute president
Randi Weingarten, touched on a wide range of issues pertaining to
civic education, including what it means for democracy and political
participation, how to expand coverage of the topic in U.S. schools'
curricula, and the arguments for doing so.
These informal conversations are designed to promote frank
discussion about critical questions in American education and public
policy. With a bipartisan group of participants, the institute also
hopes to cut through the political polarization and posturing that
dominate our public discourse. Participants brought a wide range of
perspectives and experiences to the table. Among those attending
were National Endowment for the Humanities chairman Jim Leach; NEA
president Dennis Van Roekel; former Republican congressman Mickey
Edwards; Washington Post education reporter Valerie Strauss; Newark
Public Schools superintendent Clifford Janey; AT&T senior vice
president Charlene Lake; Core Knowledge Foundation chairman E.D.
Hirsch Jr.; and Ernest Green, a member of the "Little Rock Nine,"
the group of African-American students who integrated Little Rock
public schools in 1957.
Civic education might be broadly defined as the teaching of the
knowledge and skills necessary for effective participation in and
understanding of communities, government and politics. This includes
not only basic knowledge of political structures and processes, but
also why they are important and how individuals can influence them.
Although much of the discussion was focused on civic education in
the K-12 context, participants paid significant attention to the
fact that imparting this knowledge is also the responsibility of
parents, the mass media and communities.
There was relative consensus on two things: attention to the role
public schools play in the education of well-prepared citizens has
been overshadowed by decades-old arguments over how to boost test
scores; and there was a general sense that this is having a
corrosive effect on the substance and tenor of democratic discourse
in the nation.
The depth and breadth of the participants' knowledge and
experience fostered a lively discussion on these points. Some
participants focused on the relationship between civic education and
measurable effects such as voter turnout and news consumption, while
others discussed a perceived decline in the public's understanding
of and support for policies that promote the common good. One
example that was given was a town hall meeting over healthcare at
which someone shouted, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Another interesting set of comments addressed whether and how the
current national focus on math and reading has helped to push
subjects like civics out of the curriculum, and whether mandatory
assessments of history and civics would help. While some
participants supported this idea, others were more
skeptical—expressing hesitation about introducing yet more testing
into U.S. public education, and arguing that civics tests might only
serve to make the subject matter more rigid and less interesting for
teachers and students alike.
Several possibilities for action were raised, including more
frequent NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
assessments, federal legislation, and the development of common core
state standards for civics. Although there was some healthy debate
about the most effective course to take, all participants agreed
that something needs to be done and that civic education needs to
play a bigger role in U.S. public education, public policy, and
family and community discourse.
