A False Choice: Informed Action is Vital to Educating for Democracy

by Shawn P. Healy, PhD, Democracy Program Director

Last week, Fordham Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow Chester E. Finn, Jr. penned a sharp critique of the National Council for the Social Studies’ (NCSS) opposition to states requiring students to pass the Citizenship Test as a condition of high school graduation. His piece went on to assail the teaching of civics and social studies more generally, and warrants a response from this lifelong civic educator and advocate.

I have already taken a public stance against the required Citizenship Test in an article published by Congressional Quarterly, but I agree with Finn in that “…the world (and nation) in which we live has greater need than ever before for its young adults to possess a solid grounding in the country’s history, values, and civic institutions.”

And we also find common ground in our support for direct instruction on the basics like the three branches of government and the five freedoms of the First Amendment. However, there is little empirical evidence that a content-centered curriculum alone results in higher test scores on assessments like the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Civics (NAEP) designed to measure students’ civic knowledge and skills.

In my analysis of the last three iterations of NAEP Civics at the 12^th grade level, I found no evidence of any content variable (teaching the U.S. Constitution, for example) correlating with higher test scores. Most actually demonstrated a slightly negative correlation. By comparison, discussing current events, classroom debates, and simulations of democratic processes resulted in stronger student performance, current events dramatically so. These proven civic learning practices bring content knowledge to life.

The 1998 NAEP Civics Assessment asked students a question about whether or not they volunteered in their community, and if so, whether it took place on their own and through school. The difference on the latter variable was statistically insignificant, an important finding in its own right, but the difference in performance by students who volunteered and those who didn’t was dramatic (17-18 points; see graph below).

In illustrating the benefits of these student-centered civic learning practices I am not discounting the importance of disciplinary knowledge. Finn forces us to make a false choice in pitting one against the other. Knowledge often inspires civic engagement, and while engaging, we frequently seek further information to determine our next action steps.

Finn calls out “action civics,” labeling it “…a little nebulous but seems to boil down to advocacy and protests.” This charge is at best uninformed as the civic learning community has coalesced around the https://www.socialstudies.org/c3a framework where students are empowered to select issues deeply personal to them, draw upon disciplinary knowledge (the facts Finn privileges) to define the problem, and ultimately to explore public policy options that address both root causes and current symptoms.

Ultimately, there is a take action component, most often focused on an “inside strategy” like writing a letter to an elected official or creating a public service announcement intended to influence public opinion. This is the counterpart to the “outside strategies” that Finn derides, both of them critical to informed, effective engagement in our democracy.

Finally, Finn takes a shot at student voice in school governance and broader school climate reform efforts. He seemingly fails to appreciate that most students still attend public schools, governmental institutions staffed by public employees. Their governance, whether authoritarian or democratic (preferably the latter), is a daily civics lesson in its own right. What better place than school for students to learn the rights and responsibilities of their roles as citizens in our democracy?

I align with Finn in pursuing the historic civic mission of our schools and integrating direct instruction into a K-12 civics curriculum. We part ways in my belief that it must be paired with more student-centered practices like discussion, service-learning, and simulations, and also that student voice is vital to the governance of democratic institutions like public schools.