“Self-government requires
far more than voting in elections every four years. It requires
citizens who are informed and thoughtful, participate in their
communities, are involved in the political process, and possess moral
and civic virtues.”
Gould,
J (Ed.). The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics, (2011).Guardian
of democracy: The civic mission of schools.
p.6
This
quote lays the groundwork for why the authors of the report believe
that it is crucially important for students in a democracy to have a
thorough and interdisciplinary grounding in civics. They believe
that merely pushing a button, filling in a circle, or any other
method of voting every four years only barely scratches the surface
of democratic action. Voting is a key component of democracy,
especially when compared to other methods of government, but it
represents at best a passive form of self-government. Many people,
certainly more than would be willing to admit it, only go that far in
their involvement and then sit back and complain about the result of
said elections. To truly have self-government, people need to get
involved in the process at every level (local, state, national). Not
everybody will be involved to the same extent, but a real democracy
requires people to be continually engaged in the democratic process,
not just engaged for a few minutes every few years. Where the
authors of this report eventually tie it into schools and education
is in terms of of how citizens get the background and interest in the
appropriate level of involvement. The authors believe that this is
best accomplished in the schools for several reasons. One is that
everyone up to a certain age has to attend school, and public school
is the option open to the greatest number of people. Schools then
serve as the place of instruction for not only specific subject
areas, but for democratic, self-governing life itself. They do this
both through explicit instruction of concepts as well as important
interdisciplinary skills.
Where
I find the greatest connection between this quote and my own beliefs
about the purpose of teaching social studies is in the emphasis on
skills. These skills can be things like critical thinking, effective
oral and written communication, or how to discuss divisive issues,
among others. Aside from their applicability to life in general,
these issues are not only important in the social studies but also in
other subject areas. While students certainly need exposure to a
wide range of concepts and topics, often skills can be most
important. Whether a Socratic seminar is focused on Ancient Chinese
philosophies, Civil War leadership, or competing economic systems, if
students can use their reading and discussion skills well, they will
have increased access to future knowledge on all sorts of topics. If
only by virtue of possessing these skills, students will become more
involved in the world around them. What I don't completely agree
with, if only because there are a lot of unstated specifics about the
matter, is the single-minded focus on democracy as opposed to
creating generally well-rounded thoughtful individuals who just
happen to agree that democracy is a worthwhile system of government.
If people are well-educated on good principles for daily life which
just so happen to also be central principles for democracy, then why
obsess over whether you're teaching them for democracy or not? If
these principles are so worthwhile (and I believe they are), then
they should be worthy independent of their alignment with democratic
ideals. As an aside, I wouldn't want students to be aware that they
are being taught with democratic ideals (except in classes like
Civics or US History where the connection is blatant) as students
(particularly those relatively unfamiliar with democracy) should
discover the merits of these ideas and their connection to democracy
themselves in order to make these ideas their own and central to
their being and acting.
