Several states are requiring high school students to pass the US naturalization test in order to graduate. I credit the very well-intentioned sponsors of these bills with raising attention to civics and provoking a healthy discussion. I am against the actual legislation, for reasons I laid out in a Fox News piece: “Federal Citizenship Test: What Should a Good Citizen Really Know About America?” Mills College professor Joseph E. Kahne has an excellent article along similar lines in Ed Week today: “Why Are We Teaching Democracy Like a Game Show?” It’s behind a firewall, so I’ll just cite some highlights:

Suppose a legislature passed a law that made it a graduation requirement to know the name of the town in which Shakespeare was born. By passing that law, the members reasoned, teachers would teach this fact, students would learn it, and presto—the nation would benefit from improved literacy!

This hypothetical may sound odd, but legislators in more than a dozen states want to prepare young people for democracy by taking this approach. They have drafted bills to make passage of the naturalization test, the test given to those who want to become U.S. citizens, a graduation requirement. This law has already passed in Arizona and North Dakota.

To some, this graduation requirement may sound fair. If those who want to be American citizens must pass this test, why not require it for high school seniors?

Unfortunately, the test consists of a fixed set of 100 factual questions. For example, one test question asks for the name of the territory the United States purchased in 1803, and another asks respondents to “name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.” Memorizing the answers to such questions might prepare students for the game show “Jeopardy!,” but doing so won’t promote good citizenship any more than memorizing who wrote Moby Dick would promote good literacy skills.

…

Schools can prepare students to become leaders and problem-solvers for the 21st century. But to do so, policymakers need to reinforce the focus on substantive reform, not distract teachers and students with empty symbolic efforts. That way, teachers can concentrate on helping students understand the content of the Constitution, rather than on requiring that they memorize the answer to the test question, “When was the Constitution written?”

Democracy thrives when citizens think critically and deeply about civic and political issues, when they consider the needs and priorities of others, and when they engage in informed action—not when they memorize a few facts. Let’s make high-quality civic learning a priority. Let’s not take the easy way out and pass laws in more than a dozen states that turn civic education into a game of Trivial Pursuit.

The post Joe Kahne on the citizenship test movement appeared first on Peter Levine.

Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (which has been known for the past decade as “No Child Left Behind”) will be a tortuous and uncertain process. But at the moment, the leading contender is the “Every Child Achieves Act,” negotiated by the Senate education committee chair, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and the ranking member, Patty Murray (D-Wash.). The text is here. It is 601 pages, covering most aspects of k-12 education in the United States. But for those of us most deeply concerned about educating the next generation of American citizens, these are the golden words:

‘‘SEC. 2304. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES. (will receive 5% of this Part’s funding)
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to  promote innovative strategies to promote innovative history, civic, and geography instruction, learning strategies, and professional development activities and programs for teachers, principals, and other school leaders, particularly for low-income students in underserved areas.
‘‘(b) IN GENERAL.—From the funds reserved by the  Secretary under section 2301(b)(3), the Secretary shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities for the purposes of—
‘‘(1) developing, implementing, evaluating and disseminating for voluntary use, innovative, evidenced-based approaches to civic learning and American history, which may include hands-on civic engagement activities for teachers and low-income students, that demonstrate innovation, scalability, accountability, and a focus on underserved populations; or
(2) other innovative evidence-based approaches to improving the quality of student achievement and teaching of American history, civics, and government in elementary schools and secondary schools.
‘(c) PROGRAM PERIODS AND DIVERSITY OF PROJECTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A grant awarded by the Secretary to an eligible entity under this section shall be for a period of not more than 3 years.
‘‘(2) RENEWAL.—The Secretary may renew a  grant awarded under this section for 1 additional 2- year period.
‘‘(3) DIVERSITY OF PROJECTS.—In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that, to the extent practicable, grants are distributed among eligible entities that will serve geographically  diverse areas, including urban, suburban, and rural areas. …

Civic education badly needs innovation. Innovation costs money. The federal government should support innovation (along with rigorous assessment). That is one of its most valuable and least controversial roles. States won’t pay for elaborate innovation because the benefits are shared nationally but they would bear the costs. Foundations can help to a limited extent, but they don’t have enough money. The feds should pay for the next generation of civic education–Civics 2.0, civics that is more effective, more engaging, harder, and more fun than what we received. And if this bill passes, they will.

The post civics in the Senate education bill appeared first on Peter Levine.

The Annual Benefit dinner for Discovering Justice is this evening, and I’d like to take the opportunity to highlight the organization, on whose board I serve. It is the most significant and effective group in the US that supports the civic education of younger children, grades k-8.

Relatively little is known about the lasting effects of civics at the lower grades–or even about what works best. Certainly, “civics” for younger children overlaps with character education, interpersonal skills, and personal behavior. It’s not all about laws, systems, and social issues. Discovering Justice takes a holistic approach. Still, even if we define “civics” narrowly, it is an appropriate topic for elementary students. The C3 (College, Career, and Citizenship) Framework identifies fairly specific civics content for grades k-2, shown at the right.

Kids are definitely able to learn these things. I cannot demonstrate that if they do, it will make a difference once they’re 30–especially if they get no reinforcement in between. But I’d be willing to bet that teaching these topics in elementary school is one component of an effective civic education. And the only way to find out is to develop, refine, improve, and test k-8 civics, which is the role that Discovering Justice has taken on.

The post Discovering Justice and civics for young children appeared first on Peter Levine.

I have an op-ed on FoxNews.com against the recent wave of state laws that require students to pass the US citizenship test. It begins:

Quick: how many amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified?

The answer is 27. The question comes from the federal test required for new citizens. Arizona and North Dakota recently made passing that test a graduation requirement for all their high school students, and several other states are considering the idea.  I fear imposing this test will actually reduce the amount of civics our young people study and remember.

The federal citizenship test consists of 100 multiple-choice questions; individuals see a random sample of 10. The easiest way to prepare for it is to memorize the 100 right answers. When you see the key word “amendment,” you remember to choose “27.”

I argue against this test as a tool for improving civics. But the idea is well-intentioned and may do good if it prompts a discussion about what our kids should learn and how we should test them. Civics doesn’t get a lot of attention; those of us who try to raise its profile are rarely successful. This year’s debate about the citizenship test in high schools may have brought more visibility to the topic than anything that’s happened in all the years I’ve been involved with civics. In my Fox News piece, I ask readers to consider what a better assessment would look like. If legislators and other leaders ask themselves that question, we may see better policies–and then we should thank the proponents of the citizenship test for prompting this conversation.

The post on requiring the federal citizenship test in high school appeared first on Peter Levine.

I have an op-ed in Politico today that begins:

It is time to try lowering the voting age to 17 nationwide. Takoma Park, Maryland, has done it. Iowa, too, for caucuses. Scotland went down to age 16 for its recent independence referendum. Evidence suggests it will boost informed participation in our democracy over time.

Supportive research is collected on the CIRCLE website. At 11:35 today, I’ll be live on WBAL (in Baltimore or on the web) talking about the idea with Clarence M. Mitchell, IV.

The post making the voting age 17 appeared first on Peter Levine.

USA Today’s editorial board has an editorial today supporting the recent laws in Arizona and North Dakota that require students to pass the federal test designed for naturalizing citizens. The board acknowledges, “Some questions are easy or trivial. But many about voting, the First Amendment, states’ rights and the Supreme Court offer jumping-off points for enticing discussions about current events. In the hands of a good teacher, they can make students realize how much the American system of government affects their lives. The test can provide a floor on civics learning. It doesn’t have to set the ceiling.”

To their credit, the board gave me equal space for an “opposing view.” I argue, “Requiring students to pass the citizenship exam will reduce both the amount and the quality of civic education in our schools.” I conclude:

The citizenship exam requires, for instance, that you know that “27” is the correct answer when you’re asked how many constitutional amendments have been passed. You don’t need to understand reasons for or against those amendments, or have any sense of why they were important.

A month after students pass this test, they will forget the number 27. But they might retain the message that being a good citizen is a matter of memorizing some random information. That seems like an excellent way to turn people off.

The post a USA Today debate about the citizenship exam appeared first on Peter Levine.

Arizona recently passed legislation requiring all high school students to pass the test required for naturalization as a US citizen. About a dozen other states are considering similar bills. Some of my friends are supporters, and the idea seems attractive for several reasons. It sounds like a way to strengthen civic education, and it subjects native-born Americans to the same test we require of immigrants, which may seem just.

I am nevertheless against the idea. First, I am worried that the time allocated to civics will shrink as a result. After all, this is an easy test. You can see all the questions and answers in advance. It takes a matter of hours to study for it. People who do not read English still memorize the answers and pass it, without comprehension. If passing this test comes to be seen as adequate preparation for citizenship, there will be no reason to spend a semester on civics, for the demands on math and science are much higher.

Importantly, more than 90% of US high school seniors have spent a semester in a civics course. They have also spent a year on US history, which is actually the topic of most questions on the naturalization test.

That brings me to a bigger objection. Requiring a single, short test of concrete factual knowledge in civics would be a step forward if most kids never faced such a test. But at least 90% of students do face regular testing that is quite a bit more demanding than the naturalization exam. If you take a US history sequence and an American government course–as most students must–then you are tested, at least by your teacher and, in many cases, also by the state.

If our problem were a total neglect of civics, then we might begin by requiring a simple test. But that is not the situation.

Instead, one major problem is that we do not take the time to teach (nor assess) the deeper and more demanding civic skills that we really need–such skills as following and interpreting a complex current issue, or advocating in a court or legislature, or developing an argument for a public policy. These are the kinds of outcomes that tend to be missing from state assessments. I don’t see how a new test like Arizona’s will increase the time or effort spent on learning these skills. I can see us spending less time if adequate performance on civics comes to be equated with passing the naturalization test.

The other problem is that adult Americans don’t know basic facts about the political system. According to today’s New York Times story about civics, “A survey last year by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that more than a third of respondents could not name a single branch of the United States government, while fewer than a quarter knew that a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate is required to override a presidential veto.”

But most of these adults had to study precisely these topics in school and faced tests on them. So the problem is that they don’t remember the concrete factual information (much as I have forgotten my high school chemistry). Now, why would they forget these facts? I would posit: because they have not formed habits of actively engaging with news and current events. You will remember the branches of the government if you are interested in President Obama’s current tensions with the Republican Congress. If you don’t follow such news, you can easily forget what you crammed for in 11th grade civics.

Thus the second problem is really that civics is often boring. It doesn’t inspire interest that will continue after the test. And again, I don’t see how the Arizona legislation will address that problem, but I can see it making it worse.

The post why not require high school students to pass the citizenship exam? appeared first on Peter Levine.