• Grounds for Concern About the NAEP Findings
• Inadequacy of Current Curricular Requirements, Teacher Preparation, and Instruction
• Effectiveness of Good Programs in Civics and Government
• Need for a National Campaign to Promote Effective Instruction in Civics and Government
• References

• The NAEP findings are grounds for concern. They call for action to remedy a serious deficiency in the education of American citizens.
• Failure of students to do well on the NAEP assessment is a direct consequence of the widespread lack of adequate curricular requirements, teacher preparation, and instruction in civics and government.
• Good programs in civics and government produce good results. They are the solution to the shortcomings identified in the NAEP results.
• There is a need for a national campaign to ensure that effective instruction in civics and government is provided to every student in every school in the nation.

The NAEP civics assessment found that only about 25 percent of U.S. 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-graders demonstrated proficiency in civics. These findings are not surprising. They are consistent with those of other studies of the knowledge of American youth about politics and government that have been conducted in recent years. Add to these findings the results of studies of the participation of our young people in the political life of their communities and nation and we have a picture of large numbers of our youth as being ill-informed about their government and not participating in it.

A recent study commissioned by the National Association of Secretaries of State (1999) found that in the last presidential election less than 20 percent of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 25 bothered to vote. The same study revealed that 94 percent of our youth believe that "the most important thing I can do as a citizen is to help others." This is an admirable sentiment, but it is also a conception of the roles and responsibilities of citizenship that is totally inadequate in a nation that is supposed to have a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In response to the NAEP findings, the noted scholar R. Freeman Butts has commented, "I agree that the results are not too surprising, but in any event they are deplorable, worse than 'not satisfactory'. . . . the civics findings should trumpet a national alert [about a problem] that is even more disturbing than the weaknesses in other academic subjects. For our citizenship itself is at stake" (Butts 1999).

One of the major reasons our students did not do well on the NAEP assessment is that the vast majority are either not being taught civics and government at all or are being taught too little, too late, and inadequately. Under these conditions, we can hardly expect them to do well on such a test. One major reason civics is not taught adequately is that most states and school districts do not have sufficient requirements for instruction in civics and government.

• Education in civics and government should not be incidental to the schooling of American youth but should be treated as a central purpose of education essential to the well-being of American democracy.
• Civics and government should be considered a subject on a level with other subjects. Civics and government, like history and geography, constitute an integrative and interdisciplinary subject.
• Civics and government should be taught explicitly and systematically from kindergarten through 12th grade, either as separate units and courses or as readily identifiable parts of courses in other subjects.
• Effective instruction in civics and government should include attention to the content of the discipline as well as to the essential skills, principles, and values required for full participation in and reasoned commitment to our democratic system.

To find out more about state policies and practices in civic education, the Center for Civic Education commissioned a study by the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs (University of Texas at Austin 1999b). The findings of that study, briefly noted below, substantiate the shortcomings of public policy on civic education.

State constitutions. Thirteen states' constitutions explicitly affirm that an informed citizenry is a worthwhile goal by mandating public education or otherwise promoting education. However, no constitutional provisions specifically require instruction in citizenship, government, rights, or liberties.

State statutes. Twenty-six states have enacted state laws specifically related to civic education. These statutes are of four types (a few states have more than one type):

• statutes that require instruction in civics but do not require specific courses, standards, or assessments, leaving the details to regulatory authorities, school districts, or schools (11 states);
• statutes that require some form of civics assessment or the specification of civics content in state standards (5 states);
• statutes that require one or more specific courses in civics, government, constitutions, or related topics, often mandating not only the instruction topic but also the year and length of the course(s) (10 states); and
• statutes that relate to civic education but do not fit any of the other three categories (e.g., statutes that fund civic education curricula, authorize community service in schools, or require a state clearinghouse for information on character and citizenship education programs) (7 states).

• by adopting separate civics standards (3 states);
• by including civics topics as an explicit section in social studies standards (23 states); and
• by integrating civics content into social studies standards (18 states, including the District of Columbia).

State requirements for high school civics/government courses. Twenty-nine states (including the District of Columbia) reported requiring that students complete one or more high school courses in civics/government. Only 5 of these states require a 12th-grade capstone course.

State assessments of civics topics. Thirty-one states reported testing civics topics, with 11 more states (including the District of Columbia) expecting to institute new tests soon. Only 3 of the 31 states reported having a separate, stand-alone civics test, however; in the other 28 states, the civics topics are included in other state assessments. In 15 of the 31 states, student failure on these tests prevents high school graduation; in 2 of the 15 states, failure also prevents promotion.

State certification to teach civics topics. Thirteen states reported offering certification in civics or government (or both) for high school teachers, with 10 of these states also offering certification in civics or government for middle school or junior high school teachers. The most common state certification for teachers of civics topics is a broad history and social studies certification, although 3 states reported requiring only a general teaching certification. Twenty-three states reported requiring teachers to pass some kind of standardized test of their civics knowledge before being certified to teach civics content.

These policies clearly do not meet the standards outlined earlier in this article.

Other shortcomings in civic education that are obvious to informed observers include

• inadequate teacher preparation;
• an emphasis on the structure of institutions and current events without providing the framework of democratic values and principles required for understanding and decisionmaking;
• lack of sequential and increasingly sophisticated development of the subject; and
• inadequate methodology for teaching knowledge and skills and for fostering desirable attitudes, dispositions, and commitments.

A number of studies demonstrate that good instruction in civics and government results in student attainment of the desired knowledge, skills, and attitudes.^* I will illustrate what good civic education programs can achieve with the following anecdote reported by a civic educator from the state of Alabama (Black 1999):

Sixth-graders at Bryan Elementary School in Morris, Alabama, taking part in a civics project tried to get a traffic light installed at a busy intersection near their school. What they thought was a simple task turned out to involve the local city council and police department, the county sheriff's office, the county planning office, the state department of transportation, and other agencies. The students completed their project and presented their recommendations to their city council and police chief. They were promised the light by a certain date. However, when it was not installed at that time, the students developed a lobbying plan and called the officials every week until the light was finally installed.

Six months later, the county commission announced its intention to build a new jail close to Bryan Elementary School on Turkey Creek, an area that the students used as an outdoor science laboratory. Their parents objected to the building of the jail so close to their school. They tried a number of approaches and received a lot of media attention but had very little effect on the county commission.

Then the parents realized they already had "practiced experts in the political process" in their homes, and they began talking with their children about how to influence their county commission. The parents then talked with their children's teachers and obtained copies of the Project Citizen textbook [Center for Civic Education 1996] their children had been using.

Advised by their children, the parents got organized. The "angry voters" began turning into "an educated citizenry," county commissioners started turning up at public meetings (instead of ignoring or insulting the parents who came to county commission meetings), and . . . the jail project was cancelled.

In an interesting additional twist, the students' interest in Turkey Creek skyrocketed, and last spring six Bryan classes took part in a field day at the creek, doing trash cleanup and environmental impact studies.

There is a need to ensure that all students in the United States receive the kind of instruction in civics and government that will enable them to participate competently and responsibly in the governance of their nation. Under the leadership of Secretary Richard W. Riley, the U.S. Department of Education has provided significant support for civic education. Other agencies of the federal government and Congress have also supported civic education. The federal government can play a leadership and catalytic role in promoting the improvement of civic education. The major responsibility for providing sound programs in civic education, however, lies at the state and local levels, where much work needs to be done.

With the assistance of many of our colleagues, the Center for Civic Education has taken the first steps to launch a national campaign to promote civic education. We are exploring ways to cooperate with other organizations that have also recognized the need for better civic education. These include, for example, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Commission for Civic Renewal, the Compact for Learning and Citizenship of the Education Commission of the States, the National Association of Secretaries of State, and the National Council for the Social Studies.

Aristotle said, "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in a democracy, they will be attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." This quotation conveys an important thought, but I would like to add something to it. What is missing from Aristotle's statement is the idea that participation alone is not enough. We need to develop enlightened participation, and the best way to do that is through civic education. The NAEP findings indicate that about one-quarter of U.S. students demonstrate proficiency in civics. It is our responsibility to make sure the remaining three-quarters of students have an opportunity to do as well. Thus prepared, they should have the capacity and the will to work together to preserve our democratic heritage and narrow the gap between our ideals and reality.

^* For example, see University of Texas at Austin (1999a), Brody (1994), Stretcher (1988), and Niemi and Junn (1998).