A Standard Post
I did a lot of writing today, so I’m a bit tapped out. Fortunately, I think one thing I wrote is worth sharing. I had to write up a response to Pennsylvania’s academic standards for civics and government in grades 1-12. SHort version: I wasn’t too impressed. Want the long version? See below.
My initial response to the Pennsylvania civics curriculum was that it was not particularly helpful. The writing is so bland and vague that I had difficulty when I tried to visualize an individual student’s progress. In grade 9, students should be able to “explain how law protects individual rights and the common good,� while in grade 12 they should “analyze how the law promotes the common good and protects individual rights� (5.1.9.J and 5.1.12.J, emphasis added). I assumed that analyzing requires the students to bring some kind of judgment to bear on the topic, and would probably require the use of critical thinking skills. I then wondered why students would not develop and use these skills sooner, until I looked at the next section. Ninth grade students are expected to “analyze political leadership and public service in a republican form of government� while twelfth grade students will “evaluate� the exact same thing (5.2.9.D and 5.2.12.D). So I began to think that these different words were being used to give an illusion of a progression through the different grade levels, without giving a clear idea to the teacher of what this progression should be. I would much rather have seen a longer set of standards that included something like a list of questions that the students should be able to answer, or more detailed topics that they should be able to discuss.
Furthermore, because each item of the standards is so short, there is no room for discussion of what contentious terms might mean, and how those different potential meanings could shape the curriculum. For example ninth grade students are expected to “contrast the individual rights created by the Pennsylvania Constitution and those created by the Constitution of the United States,� while twelfth grade students “analyze and assess the rights of the people as listed� in those documents (5.1.9.F and 5.1.12.F, emphasis added). Whether or not rights are a creation of a social order, or something with which human beings are somehow naturally endowed and therefore need only be listed as recognized by the government, is an enormous issue. I do not believe it is possible to contrast, analyze, or assess a potential right without having some sense of where one stands on the very nature of a right. The standards do not provide any room in section 5.2 (on the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship) for a discussion of the source or nature of rights – their existence is just taken for granted. But then, in the sections just quoted, different standards are hinted at. A good teacher should, I believe, fill this void by having such a discussion with his or her class, but if a good teacher has to guess and fill in gaps in the standards, of what use are the standards?
I believe this is a symptom of a larger problem with the standards – too much is taken for granted because of the broad manner in which they are written. Students are expected to make broad comparisons between “limited and unlimited government� or to frame a conflict of direct democracy vs. republican government. They are asked to learn how a bill becomes law at the state and national levels. But will they learn about the unique characteristics of the American system, of a first-past-the-post method of selecting representatives as opposed to a proportional representation system or the British Westminster system? When they study “How Government Works,� will they be expected to understand concepts like the cloture vote in the Senate? I currently teach a class in American Philosophy at La Salle, and during our discussion of the Constitution students could not explain how the different terms of representatives vs. senators could affect the types of bills passed in each chamber, or how a filibuster worked. These government mechanisms may seem like dry details, but if we accept the idea that the civics standards in our schools should ensure that we give students the knowledge and skills they need to be good citizens, then these details are essential. This is especially true given that not every student who graduates from a Pennsylvania high school will pursue post-secondary education.
I am also concerned about the way that patriotism and symbols are incorporated into standards, especially given that there seems to be a relative under-emphasis on the ways in which individuals participate in civic life. I understand that there is a value to symbols and rituals like the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance as discussed in 5.1.G, but the standards seem to accept on their face that these are good things exactly as they are, except for a possible discussion of the flag’s role in civil disobedience in grade 12. I agree with the notion that John Stuart Mill puts forward in On Liberty that people tend to lose sight of the real meaning of an idea when that idea no longer has to engage any opposition. As the idea becomes a rote symbol, it loses its grasp on the engaged intellect. It becomes something to mumble at the beginning of the school day, rather than a confrontation with the ideals and realities of American society. I do not believe that the standards do enough to bring out those critical reasoning skills I mentioned earlier, or to show how they can be applied to American customs and institutions. I get a sense from the standards that we probably want students to ask “Why are things this way?� But I do not get a sense that we want them to ask “Should they be this way?� That may be by design; the thought may be that schools that are trying to pass along citizenship skills should not invite students to challenge society. But I believe that Mill’s argument shows exactly why challenging society is a vital citizenship skill.
This is why I do not think the sections on citizenship or on how government works are sufficient. I know that the standards want students to know about the importance of participation in civic life, but what counts as participation? Where is the role of the citizen in government? Where should it be? Is it possible to participate outside of organized structures? Even section 5.3.H begins talking about individual interests and by grade 12 evolves into a discussion of organized interest groups. What about citizen activism? Civil disobedience? Petitions? Individual letters to representatives? Is it even possible for the individual citizen to avoid being carried along by the tide? I have my own individual answers to these questions. I would certainly try to get them across in my own teaching. If the standards are going to be at all useful or effective, however, they should address the questions as well. In doing so, I would argue, they need to stress a more active and engaged role for the citizen and then prepare the student to fill that role. This means more than passing along information – it means building skills.
I should say that while I am disappointed in the depth with which the standards deal with topics, I am pleased at the breadth of the topics that they cover. In terms of framing a broad outline of subjects and areas to explore, I could not think of anything that was obviously left out. (Although I do wish that the section on international affairs more explicitly discussed the effect of the United States’ activities on people in the rest of the world.) The standards are a good starting point, but as a prospective high school teacher looking for guidance, I feel like I need there to be more meat on the bones.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.