K-12 Civics Doesn’t Need to Be a Partisan Battleground
Is non-partisan civics education still possible? For many Americans, such a notion might seem hopelessly naive. To make their case, they need only point to states passing legislation to combat critical race theory (CRT) or others like Illinois and California that mandate “culturally responsive teaching.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has stated his opposition to the Civics Secures Democracy Act which, despite some bipartisan support, critics accuse of being a leftist boondoggle. Recent Florida Department of Education civics trainings have similarly been accused of ideological indoctrination.
If all civics is inherently partisan, however, it surely spells the end of civic education in public schools. Why should parents subject their children to political education – that is, education oriented toward certain policy outcomes – they disagree with? Why should partisan civics be broadly supported through tax dollars? Civics is about learning fundamental knowledge that’s necessary for good citizenship. If we can’t agree on the fundamentals, we can’t have civics.
Of course, certain aspects of civics generate little controversy such as understanding the basic functions and processes of government. But even more contested areas that touch on fundamental values of our political system and controversial moments in our history can avoid partisanship with the right approach.
If we’re serious about preserving civics as an important component of public education, teachers need ongoing educational opportunities that feature the following:
Scholars of American political thought: Teachers need the chance to learn from scholars of political science and history who study the development of ideals central to the American creed – liberty, equality, and justice – and key constitutional principles. Scholars should be chosen for their facility with teachers and having a demonstrated ability to represent competing points of view fully and fairly.
Primary Sources: The study of historical documents should be central to any civics curriculum. Relying on the actual words of historical figures is the best way to avoid biased presentations of their views. Simply providing primary sources is not sufficient. Context for given sources and competing viewpoints also needs to be included to avoid one-sided or misleading understanding of historical documents or events.
Discussion: Even with diverse views represented through well-selected primary sources, it’s only in dialogue with scholars and fellow educators that teachers can fully work through differing points of view. Teachers should come to a well-rounded understanding of a particular debate or event, thereby avoiding intentional partisanship in the classroom.
Far too few civics teachers have these kinds of training programs available to them. Fortunately, the Jack Miller Center has been active in promoting and conducting such programs for more than a decade, and a number of scholars in our network have taken it upon themselves to start their own programs. But given the polarization around civics today, much more needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.
Civics will always encompass a battle of sorts, because Americans have and will always disagree about the meaning of our Constitution and finding the right balance between freedom and equality. But it need not be a partisan or ideological battlefield. Scholars and teachers need to be sufficiently educated in a given issue and committed to representing all sides fully and fairly. That’s the difference between an education meant to achieve policy outcomes and one fit for a free citizenry. The former will inevitably fail to garner the support needed to justify public funding; the latter is absolutely essential for the maintenance of our political system.
Thomas Kelly, J.D. is Director of Civics Outreach at the Jack Miller Center
