Center Urges Return to Tried-and-True Civics Courses

Curriculum eliminates required 12th grade American Government and substitutes a new course in International Studies.

August 11, 2003

Dr. C. Robert Maxfield
Superintendent
Farmington Public School
32500 Shiawassee Street

Farmington, MI 48336

Dear Dr. Maxfield:

Through the parents of Farmington students and the Farmington Public Education Network, I have learned that the Farmington Public Schools recently revised the high school curriculum eliminating the requirement of 12th grade American Government and substituting a new required course in International Studies. As the Assistant General Counsel for the Center for Individual Freedom, I have been and continue to be involved with the Center’s efforts to inform public school officials and parents about the necessities of maintaining rigorous and thoughtful curricula that include coursework on American history and government while reflecting balanced and unbiased viewpoints. As a result, I now write to express my concerns with these changes to the Farmington Public Schools’ curriculum.

The Center for Individual Freedom is a non-profit, non-partisan constitutional advocacy group whose mission it is to protect and defend individual freedom and individual rights guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. As a result, the Center is particularly concerned with the education our children receive in classrooms across the country about our republican form of government and the place of the United States in the world. After reading many materials specific to the curriculum change made by the Farmington Public Schools, I have deep concerns about both the elimination of 12th grade American Government and the institution of the International Studies program.

The decision to drop the senior-level capstone course in American Government could not come at a worse time. As you might be aware, one prominent agenda item discussed at the recent National Education Association Conference in New Orleans was the failure of our schools to provide adequate civics education, particularly with regard to U.S. history and government. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress study from 2001, nearly six in ten high school seniors (57 percent) could not even demonstrate a "basic" understanding of American history, while only one in ten (11 percent) showed a "proficient" level of understanding. Thus, it is not surprising that, when asked to pick an ally of the United States in World War II from a list, more than half of high school seniors identified one of the Axis nations: Germany, Japan, or Italy. In fact, the National Association of Scholars reported that today’s college seniors have roughly the same level of cultural knowledge as the high school seniors of 1955 – a fact that was confirmed when the American Council of Trustees and Alumni gave a high school history test to more than 500 college seniors in 1999. Four out of five of the college seniors failed the test by achieving only a D or F on the high school history exam, and only one in three knew that President George Washington was a general in the Revolutionary War, while only one in five knew that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" came from President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Unfortunately, these results are not at all shocking to me. I served as an associate instructor for "Introduction to American Politics" at Indiana University in 1993 and 1994, a required course for many underclassmen. At the beginning of each semester, we (the teachers) would gauge the knowledge of those enrolled in the course by giving a test about the basics of the American political system. The poor results were shocking to me then. Less than a third of these college students at a competitive Big Ten university could identify the term of a United States Senator or name a single United States Supreme Court justice. Thus, a decade ago, I learned that American students lagged far behind in rudimentary knowledge about our country and its government. And while it may be humorous that Jay Leno can "score laughs showing how people offer ridiculous answers to simple questions" about United States history and government (see Ben Feller, "Don’t know much about history: America’s civics challenge," Associated Press, July 2, 2003), the factual basis for such humor demonstrates the importance of continued civics education in the areas of American history and government, not the elimination of such courses.

I am also disappointed to learn that the Farmington School Board believes that American history and government is most appropriately only taught at the 9th grade level. Such shortsightedness not only has a negative impact by taking away the advantages of cumulative learning over a course of multiple years of study, but also reduces a student’s exposure to American history and government to that of the freshman level. Such a result is all the more cause for concern when studies are showing that high school seniors – the very year in which the Farmington schools have decided to eliminate American Government – are more likely than not to have less than "basic" knowledge of our American past and how to impact its future. It seems as though, now more than ever, a senior-level course about the American experience is the kind of course necessary for these soon-to-be adults as they reach the age when they can cast their first ballot, run for elected office, and be a part of American society at-large. Moreover, there can be little question that the depth of knowledge and understanding of a high school senior is markedly and dramatically different than that of a high school freshman. There is a good reason many psychologists call this adolescent period the "formative years." High school students experience tremendous growth, both personally and academically, over the course of their secondary education, and to expose these growing students to a subject as important as American history and government only at the beginning of their personal and intellectual growth is to, in essence, make the material only marginally relevant to their budding adult lives. Eliminating the senior-level, capstone course in American Government sends precisely the wrong message – it implies their civic and political involvement is far from important (after all, the school board eliminated that course requirement).

The new International Studies curriculum raises its own concerns. Specifically, as of yet, the only course to be approved for this requirement is a course titled "International Affairs" that not only seems to dramatically overreach the intellectual and critical skills of high school students, but also raises the specter of indoctrination because of a lack of balance and the presence of bias in the suggested materials.

There can be simply no question that, at least as proposed, the "International Affairs" course is beyond the abilities of some, if not most, high school seniors. In just one semester, high school seniors will apparently breeze through such "heady" topics as "how individuals in history have had global impact on the modern world through the solidification and influence of certain cultural norms," how the concept of human rights affects various people and societies in different ways," "how globalization including economic development, urbanization, resource use, international trade, global communication, and environmental impact are affecting different world regions," and "the influence of the American concept of democracy and individual rights in international institutions and in countries around the world," just to name a few of the numerous benchmarks to be covered. In addition, these students will read, understand, and even discuss materials that are consistently used in college-level political science, international affairs, and sociology courses. For instance, one of the two books designated as an "essential resource, course text" is the Nations and Governments: Comparative Politics in Regional Perspective textbook that is designed for and regularly used in college and university courses. (A simple Yahoo! or Google search confirms this fact.) The reading list is daunting, even for college level students, not to mention high school students. In each two- or three-week segment the students are supposedly going to be exposed to multiple instructional materials, many of which are in-depth articles written by academics in scholarly journals detailing the latest in the areas of foreign policy, geo-politics, international relations, cultural studies and human rights. In short, it is doubtful that even college students could fully grasp these materials in the short amount of time they are being used in the "International Affairs" classroom, much less the broad cross-section of high school 12th graders at whom these ideas will be thrust with little or no background.

The overambitious nature of the "International Affairs" course results in even greater concerns. Today’s generation of students already live in a world of sound bites that inhibit deeper thought and inquisitiveness. Any attempt to teach course materials as difficult and thought provoking as those presented in the proposed curriculum in the short time permitted likely will cause more harm than good to the student’s learning experience because he or she may be confused or conflicted by the materials in the absence of a sufficient background in international politics and religion. Worse yet, in such situations where the depth of the material is less than necessary to provide a good framework, it is more likely that bias will creep in and indoctrination will occur – a result that should be unacceptable to all educators, parents, and students. Moreover, if the course instructors are not adequately trained in debate and conflict skills, the explosive nature of the course materials, coupled with a superficial learning experience, could result in a chaos beyond the expectations of any educator. There can be no doubt that these "International Affairs" materials touch upon the most combustible subjects – nationality, politics, religion, and even the meaning of humanity itself. Yet, despite having to delve into such highly personal and controversial subjects as "how culture may affect wom[e]n’s and men’s perspectives" – not to mention the even more inflammatory subjects covered in the various optional segments, including "Religious and Ethnic Conflict," "Developmental Issues: Health, Welfare, and Education," "Terrorism," and "Warfare" – the course does little to ensure that balanced viewpoints are introduced to the class. Such a failure will only fan the flames of these controversial topics and does an educational disservice by turning the students into little more than minds ripe for indoctrination. As Thomas Jefferson said in his first Inaugural Address: "Error of opinion may be tolerated when reason is free to combat it." But in the case of the "International Affairs" course, the slanted nature of the materials leaves students who may have reasoned disagreements unable to muster the informed opinions necessary to add their own perspective.

In summary, the Farmington Public School Board should reconsider its decision to replace the 12^th Grade American Government requirement with the International Studies program and, more specifically, the approved "International Affairs" course. Beyond the serious concerns outlined above, the School Board should consider the legal ramifications of this change. Attached to this letter is a copy of an article, currently appearing on the Center’s website, that outlines some of the legal reasons the school board should tread lightly when it comes to subjecting students to courses that clearly advocate a specific point of view. I hope the School Board will reconsider its decisions, and if I can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Reid Alan Cox
Assistant General Counsel

Enclosure

To read about the Farmington Public Schools’ International Affairs course, click here.

Return to Current Events Index