Dive into the compelling issues surrounding American civics education with Civics 101, where hosts Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy are joined by experts Danielle Allen, Louise Dubé, Adam Laats, CherylAnne Amendola, and Justin Reich to dissect the challenges and evolution of teaching civics in schools. Tracing its complex and often contentious history, the episode explores the creation of national standards in the 1990s and the struggle for an inclusive curriculum reflective of a diverse America.
This episode of Civics 101 also sheds light on the current obstacles educators face, from 'divisive concepts' laws that hinder the teaching of sensitive topics to the balancing act teachers perform to align state standards with community expectations. The speakers bring to the forefront the necessity for collaboration and trust between educators, parents, and the wider community to ensure that civics education remains comprehensive and legally compliant amidst a maze of evolving legislature and social attitudes.
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Civics education in the United States encounters a complex history that includes discriminatory origins and fluctuating efforts to standardize its curriculum. The attempt to create national standards in the 1990s led to a fierce debate, shown by the backlash against Lynne Cheney's endorsed history standards at UCLA. Criticized for political correctness and sidelining traditional historical figures, these standards faced bipartisan rejection despite the founders being extensively mentioned, as defended by creators Nash and Crabtree. Researcher Adam Laats found that the standards were largely misrepresented in criticisms.
Presently, civics education is inconsistent across states, remaining underfunded and less prioritized, with only a fraction of students showing proficiency. Stakeholders, as supported by Louise Dubé and Nick Capodice, advocate for inclusive curriculums that reflect diverse histories, acknowledging that achieving effective civics education is an ongoing challenge.
The introduction of "divisive concepts" laws in nearly every state has limited educators' ability to discuss sensitive topics, based on vague prohibitions against causing discomfort or addressing topics such as sexual orientation and gender identity. The lack of clear guidelines presents a murky legal landscape for teachers, exemplified by a case with an Ohio teacher who lost his job after controversial classroom content despite following state standards.
Educators are thus in a precarious position, subject to fear and intimidation from school board confrontations and potential punitive actions. The need to conform to both state-mandated curricula and restrictive "divisive concepts" laws creates a binding climate for teachers, making it difficult to cover essential historical events without risking legal repercussions.
Adam Laats illuminates the intricate process of selecting civics and history content for schools, which involves multiple stakeholders including students, a factor often overlooked. The challenge involves harmonizing state standards with the varied responses of involved parties. Educational strategies have shifted over the years, facing resistance such as proposals for book burnings in reaction to progressive approaches during WWII.
Curricular decisions necessitate teachers to tread a fine line to honor legal and community values. An example is Ohio's social studies teacher forced to account for his community's sentiments while adhering to state regulations. Justin Reich articulates the pressing demand to satisfy a broad community, while parental opt-outs are increasingly replaced by outright content elimination through new laws.
Teachers must collaborate to navigate this complex curriculum landscape, emphasizing the trust between educators and parents, as noted by Cheryl-Ann Amendola. However, trust is not universally present, adding to the challenge. Maintaining a legally compliant curriculum that is factual without seeming indoctrinating remains a difficult balance for educators, especially with legislative pressure on acceptable teaching material.
1-Page Summary
The complex history and challenges of civics education in the United States, with its roots in discriminatory practices and recent attempts to overhaul standards, reflect its evolving nature and the difficulties faced in creating a unified curriculum.
Attempts to establish national standards have led to a heated debate, reflecting deep-seated differences over what American history and civics education should encompass.
In the 1990s, Lynne Cheney led the creation of new history standards at UCLA with Charlotte Crabtree and historian Gary Nash, but the content of these proposed standards led to a national uproar. Cheney openly disagreed with the standards she helped initiate, criticizing them for what she saw as a focus on political correctness and an exclusion of traditional historical figures, sparking claims that Bart Simpson received more attention than George Washington. Gary Nash and Charlie Crabtree defended their work, stating that founding fathers were mentioned extensively.
Despite this defense, widespread criticism resulted in a 99 to 1 Senate vote against funding the standards, framing the rejection as a defense of the contributions of Western civilization. Interestingly, this opposition was mainly bipartisan.
Adam Laats analyzed these proposed standards and concluded that their controversy stemmed not from what was in them—which he found to be established historical understandings—but from misrepresentations that painted them as anti-American and anti-white.
Today, civics education varies dramatically from state to state, with the investment in such programs having been traditionally low—at around five cents per student per year, though recently it has risen to 50 cents. Despite existing frameworks, there is no national standard, and many state gui ...
Background of Civics Education
The term "divisive concepts laws" stems from the language used by the authors of this type of legislation, and it is crucial to understand the terminology when discussing its implications.
These laws, introduced in nearly every state, restrict teachers from discussing certain topics in the classroom that could be deemed sensitive or controversial, such as racial guilt or responsibility for historical events. However, the specifics of these laws can vary significantly, and they tend to be poorly defined. Often, they ambiguously ban discussions that could cause students to feel discomfort due to their race or prevent topics like sexual orientation and gender identity from being addressed, except in ways that are "developmentally appropriate" and after certain grade levels. These regulations have become central to the ongoing debate about the future of civics education in the United States.
Justin Reich emphasizes that the vagueness of these laws creates uncertainty for educators: they prohibit certain actions but often do not clearly specify what is off-limits. Teachers thus face the challenge of teaching important historical events, such as the Trail of Tears, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Tulsa Race Massacre, that could trigger the feelings these laws suggest should be avoided. This contradictory position can place teachers at risk of violating the law.
For instance, an Ohio social studies teacher, following Ohio State standards and the Ohio model curriculum, designed a unit involving the civil rights movement, including discussions on Stonewall and the gay liberation movement. Although he reviewed the unit with his mentor teacher and principal, a parent ...
Laws Regulating Curriculum
The teaching of civics and social studies is a deeply complex activity that involves balancing numerous, sometimes conflicting relationships and priorities.
Adam Laats points out that the decision of what is taught in schools takes input from various parties including teachers, parents, and the state, with students playing a significant role that is often ignored. Teachers have to navigate state standards and consider the dynamics of their class periods when choosing daily content, making teaching a constant negotiation impacted by potential reactions from stakeholders like principals and parents.
The strategy for teaching history and civics has evolved over time. Teachers at Teachers College, Columbia University, during the World War II era advocated for civics education that encouraged students to question the power structure and acknowledge injustices within American society. Such progressive approaches, however, have faced backlash, like in Binghamton, New York, where there was a proposal to burn books that taught history and civics differently.
The inclusion of various groups into the American narrative without challenging its overall positive portrayal creates content decisions that affect the relationships between teachers, who deliver content, and the students, parents, and government who have an investment in the portrayal of national history. Tensions exist between teachers and some parent groups, as well as other actors, who sometimes disrupt school board meetings and confront teachers directly.
Curricular decisions require a delicate balance of respecting both legal mandates and community sensitivities, as evidenced by an Ohio social studies teacher who designed his unit to align with state regulations while also considering his community's temperaments.
Justin Reich notes that public schools aim to cater a curriculum to the majority, but parents with strong or 'extreme views' will always exist. While traditionally parents could opt their children out of certain parts of the curriculum, recent 'divisive concepts' laws seek to eliminate certain content entirely if objected to, rather than allowing individual opt-outs.
Teachers work collaborative ...
Teaching Controversial Topics
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser