Yet, Macedo et al. argue that schools “often teach about citizenship and
government without teaching students the skills that are necessary to become
active citizens themselves” (2005, 33). Even in civics and government courses,
which Kahne, Chi, and Middaugh describe as “the part of the formal high
school curriculum that is most explicitly linked to the democratic purposes of
education” (2006, 391), conversations about citizenship rarely extend beyond
one’s right to vote. Recent movements to standardize public education in the
United States have only exacerbated this notion by mandating content taught to
students. (p. 351)
--AND--
Perhaps the most salient conclusion drawn from this study is that
standards, like textbooks and other educational materials, are created to
perpetuate a certain ideological position (Apple 1979). Over a decade later,
the SOLs [Virginia's Standards of Learning] still maintain a largely
conservative approach to citizenship that harkens back to the political climate
surrounding the creation of the standards (Fore 1998). Although liberal civic
elements can be found in both the civics and government curricula, they do
little to alter the civic republican perspective found throughout each of the
standards. (p. 356)
Journell, W. (2010). Standardizing citizenship: the
potential influence of state curriculum standards on the civic development of
adolescents.
In his article, Wayne Journell explains different, at times conflicting,
views on the role of citizens and citizen education. He then goes on to argue
that state standards, because they are set through a political process and
those with political power have specific shared concerns (particularly
maintenance of the status quo), tend to favor conservative conceptions of the
"good" citizen. In these passages, Journell explains both the focus
of his work and his findings. Journell found, by defining different ideas of
citizenship and citizenship education (civic republicanism; civic education;
deliberative; social justice; participatory; transnational; cosmopolitan) and
by dividing Virginia's Standards of Learning (in civics, economics and
government) into those categories, that civic republicanism is the most
frequently expressed citizenship stance. This stance is a conservative stance
defined by duty, patriotism, obeying laws, volunteering and serving the country
(most frequently exemplified as military service). In essence, this stance is
not defined by questioning authority, addressing inequities, or actively
stirring protest. It is the opposite of Frederick Douglass’s advice to active
citizens: “Agitate, agitate, agitate.”
Journell goes on to argue that it is the responsibility of teachers to
ensure that the other aspects of citizenship, particularly those described in
the participatory stance, are represented in the curriculum and in the
instructional practice of classrooms. Teachers can do this by approaching
“mandated content” through discussion, deliberation and debate, and also by
problematizing citizenship and government.
Fostering meaningful democratic citizenship is, to me, the most
important goal of social studies education. Without my concern for citizenship
education, I would probably study to be an English teacher as my interest in
literature is at least equal to my interest in the content of social studies
(predominantly history and geography). This article spoke to my concerns that
citizenship education, when defined and directed by those who have already
gained influence in American politics, generally does not fulfill the needs of
a vital, justice seeking democracy. If students are bored by government and
civics classes, they will likely do little more than the bare minimum, which is
voting. As Journell remarks in the beginning of this article, voting is often
described as the primary way of influencing politics. In fact, it is one of the
least influential acts an individual can engage in and, particularly given the
structure of American democracy, replaces religion as the opiate of the masses.
Journell’s concern that schools may not do a good job, at least during
class time, preparing students to be part of a democratic community, is widely
shared. One antidote often offered is service learning which, in the Guardian
of Democracy is advocated as one of the six proven effective practices of
citizenship education. Service learning is valuable in that it fosters civic
attachment and civic virtues (unless it is poorly implemented, in which case it
may destroy both of those things). However, it too is fundamentally
conservative. It invites students to engage in direct voluntary service to
address problems that many people would argue should be government
responsibilities, including cleaning a public park or beach or painting a
public school. Additionally, while service learning can foster citizenship,
there is nothing particularly democratic about it. Democratic skills are those
which empower citizens to influence decision-makers and public opinion; service
learning addresses neither of these. This only increases the urgency of
Journell’s call to teachers to make meaningful instructional decisions that put
a focus on democratic skills and dispositions.
