See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238071085

A reaction paper from the Third Annual Educational Leadership Colloquium on

the Civic Mission of American Education Denver, CO

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 459

2 authors, including:

John Saltmarsh
University of Massachusetts Boston
54 PUBLICATIONS   560 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Saltmarsh on 17 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Examining Alternative Perspectives on the Qualities of a Civically Educated
Student

A reaction paper from the Third Annual Educational Leadership Colloquium on

the Civic Mission of American Education
Denver, CO
July 16-17, 2003

Submitted to:

Dr. John Saltmarsh

Project Director, ISAS
Campus Compact
Brown University

By:
E. Lynn Willenbrock
Doctoral Candidate
University of Massachusetts, Boston
July 23, 2003
 The third annual Educational Leadership Colloquium focused on the Civic Mission of

American Education. This paper will summarize and analyze the colloquium's proceedings

within the context of examining alternative perspectives on the qualities of a civically educated

student. It will then move to synthesizing colloquial themes and suggest an alternative answer to

one of the tasks proposed in a colloquium workshop.

In her opening remarks, Liz Hollander quoted John Dewey, reciting "Democracy has to

be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife." Westheimer and Kahne (2003)

conclude that is not hard to argue persuasively the important role schools have and can play in

pursuing democracy. They, along with other authors and reports, recognize that there is almost a

universal belief that teaching citizenship in schools is the right thing to do (Schudson, 2003;

McPherson, 2003; Dionne and Drogosz, 2003; Gregorian and Rimel, 2003; Civic Mission of

Schools Report, and Spaulding, 2003).

However, consensus begins to disintegrate when the question of how to teach citizenship

is asked. Central to answering this high stake question, is the determination of the qualities

[definition] of a civically educated student. The colloquium and its recommended readings

offered several alternative perspectives regarding this definition.

First, Judith Torney-Purta set the stage for the colloquium by talking about citizenship

competencies. From her IEA Civic Education Study in 28 Countries (140,00 high school

students), Judith found that her respondents felt a "good adult citizen" was one who obeyed the

law, protected the environment, was interested in human rights, was active in the community,

participated in political discussions, joined a party, and voted. This finding seems to be a cross

between what Westheimer and Kahne (2003) would call the personally responsible and the

practical citizen.
 In addition, according to her research, Judith reported several predictors for voting

behavior. They included having civic knowledge, hearing parental discussions of civic and

political issues, confidence in school governance, learning about the importance of voting from

teachers, and discussing controversial issues in the classroom.

Dr. Torney-Purta continued her presentation with a summary of the NCLC Thinkers

Group Meeting held last May. At that meeting, over 25 national practitioners, researchers and

policymakers came together to compile a list of civic competencies for K-12 students. The

strategic significance of developing valid competencies is made even more urgent by the

obstacles that even the most well intended civic educators face. Both Dr. Torney-Purta and the

report entitled The Civic Mission of Schools (p.15-16) list some of these difficulties. They

include: emphasis on standardized reading and math achievement testing, teachers' fears of

criticism or litigation when addressing controversial issues in the classroom, current

competencies that are not realistic-too simple or too complex, few connections to student

aspirations (valuing student voice), few professional development opportunities, difficulty in

changing school culture, budget cutbacks, and the challenge of moving beyond policy to

programs.

Next in her presentation, Judith outlined examples of the three competencies developed

by the Thinkers Group. They are as follows.

Examples of Cognitive Competencies

In current and historical contexts--to understand

- Structure and mechanisms of constitutional government and
political institutions
- Democratic principles and markers
- Legal system (rights and responsibilities)
- Local assets and problems
 - International organizations
- How ordinary citizens can create change
- Why there is disagreement within the public
- Role of media and how to analyze them

Examples of Behavioral Competencies

Have the willingness to

- Vote in a knowledgeable way
- Contribute to solving community problems
- Meet basic legal requirements
- Non-violently protest when there is injustice

Have analytic, leadership communication skills to

- Analyze alternative ways to deal with conflict
- See impact of policy decisions
- Balance self interest with community interests
- Articulate complex ideas like patriotism
- Participate in civil discourse/ build consensus

Examples of Affective Competencies

Have an orientation (disposition) to

- Be tolerant of others' views
- Trust/respect democratic procedures
- Seek efficacious action to benefit others

Have as part of one's identity

- Connection to local and national community
- Sense of unity and diversity

Hold among one's values

- Justice
- Equality
- Honesty

According to Judith Tomey-Purta, these competency strands are not meant to stand alone, but

should be intertwined with one another in the curricula throughout grade school. Finally, Judith

reminded the colloquium attendees of the importance of "achieved curriculum." It is one thing to

have an intended curriculum constructed around these competencies, it is another to implement

it, but in the end, it is what happens in the classroom that counts. This observation was

reinforced in the research session presented by Shelley Billig and Andy Furco. They reported

that results from their study implied that it is important to look at the classroom as the unit of

analysis and to focus on teacher intentionally.

In the session entitled The Contested Meaning of Civic Engagement, the presenters, Rick

Battistoni, Nick Longo and Joseph Kahne based their workshop on the work of Westheimer and

Kahne (2003). Recognizing the diversity of perceptions about citizenship, they asked the

question, "What kind of citizen do we need to support an effective democratic society?" They

consulted with educators and other leaders in the field and consequently developed a framework

to organize some of these many theoretical perspectives and came up with three different

versions of citizenship: "the personally responsible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the

justice-oriented citizen" (Westheimer and Kahne, 2003, p. 3). These authors note that the three

categories they outline "were not designed to be mutually exclusive" (p. 4). However, they feel

attending to their differences is important because "decisions we make in designing as well as

researching these programs are in fact, political" (p. 2).

The personally responsible citizen emphasizes an individualistic perspective of good

citizenship. According to Westheimer and Kahne (2003), this person acts responsibly in his

community by doing such acts as picking up litter, obeying the law, contributing to food or

clothing drives, and helping those less fortunate. This person displays good character habits like

"honesty, integrity, self-discipline, and hard work" (p. 4). They follow the Golden Rule. And

they develop compassion by volunteering (as an end in itself) to help solve "serious social

problems" (p. 4).

 The issue of "addressing real problems" is argued by Spaulding (2003, p. 4) in his fourth

(of five) principle of citizen service. Here, in an overt position against AmeriCorps and service-

learning, Spaulding contends that policymakers should only support programs that address

"authentic need for assistance", and that they should turn away from, in his opinion, programs

that merely "provide wardrobe tips, dance instruction, knitting lessons, art appreciation, or bike

clubs" (p.4). His criticism seems to be based upon nominal and cursory glances at these

programs. It is possible that upon a fuller evaluation of these programs, one would find quality

experiences that both enhance learning and address significant root problems of society.

Indeed, the theme of quality in any citizenship program was reiterated throughout the

colloquium. Billig and Furco stressed the need for high quality service-learning programs. In

their studies, they found that students who participate in high quality service-learning are

significantly more engaged in their communities than those who participate in lower quality

service-learning. These findings follow the seminal work of Eyler and Giles (1999), who also

found that quality was key in making learning differences for service-learning students.

Before leaving the Spaulding (2003) article, this paper would like to rebut one more of

his recommendations, that is to "discontinue Learn & Serve America" (p. 11), because to put it in

his words, "At a time when the main focus of education reform is to improve the basics--reading,

writing and arithmetic--policymakers should not be underwriting new pedagogical theories of

questionable value" (p.11).

Directly pertaining to this issue, it was enlightening to hear Shelley Billig talk about a

Michigan Learn & Serve program that significantly increased students' SCAT test scores. Also,

the Civic Mission of Schools report describes the Academy of American Studies, a charter high

school in Queens. It writes that this school, "makes American history a pervasive theme in all of
its classes from ninth to twelfth grade and achieves among the highest average test scores in New

York City. The Academy is required to draw a representative student body, and most of its

students come from working-class immigrant families" (p. 38). Thus, as the report notes, there is

not necessarily a contradiction between quality civic education and high-stakes testing.

In addition, although far from infallible, there is a substantial body of service-learning

research in higher education about learning outcomes. This research indicates that service-

learning: "has a positive impact on students' academic learning; improves students' abilities to

apply what they have learned in "the real world'; and has an impact on such academic outcomes

as demonstrated complexity of understanding, problem analysis, critical thinking, and cognitive

development (Eyler, Giles, Stenson, and Gray, 2001, p. 3-4).

Spaulding (2003) also wrote, "Citizen service should not be a tool for an educational

reform agenda, a platform for political or social activism, or a method of reinventing

government" (p. 3). This conservative, political nature of the personally responsible citizen

category is counter-pointed by Schudson, when he asks, why government is left out of President

Bush's citizenship agenda? He notes while there are citizens, neighbors and communities of faith

in Bush's conception of good citizenship, there is no partisanship, and there is no sense of taking

public justice personally. He exalts the potency of self-interested action and offers the civil rights

movement as an example of the most important extension of citizenship in the last one hundred

years.

Now, back to Westheimer and Kahne's second category, the participatory citizen. This

person actively participates in community and civic affairs at local, state and national levels. The

skills needed by this type of citizen are having: the knowledge of how institutions, including the

government, work; the ability to plan and participate in organized efforts to help or guide policy;
and how to run a meeting. According to Westheimer and Kahne (2003), participatory citizenship,

"develops relationships, common understandings, trust, and collective commitments. This

description is supported by the cornerstone of the philosophy promulgated by John Dewey who

wrote, "A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated

living of conjoint communicated experiences (Dewey, 1916, p. 87). Saltmarsh (1996) notes that

Dewey's conception of democracy was more cultural than political. However, he concedes that

Dewey provided a "means of political action defined by mediation and gradualism," one though,

that was not probably potent enough to realistically maneuver through the messy mudflats of

political power (p. 19).

Thus, the participatory citizen category seems to stand almost as an apolitical buffer

between two potentially politically charged positions, the personally responsible citizen and the

third of Westheimer and Kahne's categories and the justice-oriented citizen. Westheimer and

Kahne (2003) note that advocates of their third vision of citizenship call for the urgency of

seeking social justice by critically analyzing social, political and economic institutions, and

considering collective plans for change. Wherever possible, solutions to root causes of problems

are sought. These authors indicate that this orientation does not imply an emphasis on any

particular political perspective, but recognize that it tends to make political issues more explicit.

However, since there seems to be an inherent tension around the three perspectives, it is

suspected that most of the participants of the colloquium, gravitated to liberal, justice seeking

political attitudes.

In comparing their three visions, Westheimer and Kahne (2003) write, "if participatory

citizens are organizing the food drive and personally responsible citizens are donating food,

justice-oriented citizens are asking why people are hungry and acing on what they discover" (p.
5). They feel that the personally responsible citizenship model in and of itself, "is an inadequate

response to the challenges of educating a democratic citizenry" (p. 6). However, they also feel

that it may be possible to include all three visions in program design, but have found that "the

commitment to participation and the capacities it entails are not necessarily coupled with those

related to the pursuit of social justice (p. 10).

Nevertheless, the dichotomy of the first and third positions came to life at the colloquium

when the Honorable Christine M. Durham, Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, recited her

"Saving the Babies Story." In that fable, the hero was going to quit jumping into the river to

save each baby as they floated by and made the decision to go upstream to find out how they got

in the water, in the first place, and stop the problem at its source.

In the remaining panel discussions and workshops that contributed to the richness of the

colloquium's proceedings, two themes emerged. These themes seem to have a bearing on how

the opportunity for gaining a civic education takes place. First, is the notion of creating a

learning milieu that reflects confidence in student voice and aspiration and one that is in and of

itself, a democratic environment. Pearson and Voke (2003) write that a school superintendent

from Massachusetts feels that "educators must convey to students that they are valued and

contributing members of [their school] a community… and Educators must create democratic

communities in schools in which students can live the idea of democracy" (p. 6).

Nick Longo in the Student Panel on Definitions of Citizenship introduced the second

theme. He stated that in his experience, he is beginning to see that students see service not as an

alternative to politics, but rather an alternative politics in its own right. This idea is eloquently

elaborated upon in the report The New Student Politics, The Wingspread Statement on Civic
Engagement. Sarah Long, an undergraduate and participant in the Wingspread summit, wrote the

report. Early on in the report she says:

Many of us at Wingspread perceive service as alternative

politics, as a method of pursuing change in a democratic
society. We want to address immediate problems in our
communities as a way to begin. Building relationships with
others through service is often preparatory to building a movement
as we learn skills that can help us take on the roles of community
organizers. Through relationships with community members, we learn
about real community wants and needs. We learn about local
policies and politics and see how they affect people in our
communities. By deepening our connection to the
community, we become aware of issues and examine
strategies for solving problems (p. 2).

Perhaps it might be helpful to allow these themes and the preceding descriptions of

alternative perspectives on the qualities of a civically educated student to inform the task given

to the audience in the Contested Meaning of Civic Engagement workshop. The assigned task

was: Given the tension that surrounds the Wetheimer Kahne (2003) models of citizenship, what

are some concrete strategies for moving forward?

First, tension can be a good thing especially if it used to define ways of constructively

working together, even though there may not be political agreement. Anthony Welch made note

of this strategy in his keynote address.

Second, as Westheimer and Kahne suggest (2003), if blending all three visions is a

possibility, then why not try? In fact, it might be advantageous to eliminate the category labels

themselves and mix the characteristics of each vision into the competency model outlined by

Torney-Purta. This means that it is important to keep in mind that this melding would take a

careful, conscious effort and when conflicts arise the tension could be ameliorated through the

first strategy mentioned above.

 Third, it was surprising to learn the one of the three most compelling things that

colloquium participants took away with them was the realization of the relevance of service-

learning to civic education. It only seemed natural to assume that practitioners, educators and

researchers in the civic education movement had made this intrinsic connection long ago. In any

event, service-learning can indeed be a strong vehicle for reinstating civic education into our

school and college systems. To this point John Saltmarsh (1996) writes:

For service-learning to be an education for citizenship it should be based

upon a foundation unifying thought and action; it should engage students
in a direct and intimate way so that they are of a community and not
merely in it. Yet it should also not loose sight of its fundamental justice
orientation and build upon the premise of social justice in fostering
critical reflection that begins to draw connections to a wider realm of
activity beyond social association (p. 20).

Fourth, since the question of both public and private funding is so vital, any civic

education initiative, especially those that employ service-learning, needs to: pay attention to the

established competencies of citizenship; adhere to the standards of a high quality program

criteria; create a climate in which student voice is legitimate feedback; happen in a democratic

enviornment; and most importantly ensure that evaluation entails a rigorous methodology.

In conclusion, this observation of the colloquium is offered. It aptly incorporated the Six

Lessons From Civil Rights put forth by Anthony Welch. In particular, his notion that everyone

has a voice is so important. Also key is his statement that when 40 or more businesses decide

something is important, it is moved on. It was encouraging to hear State Farm's enthusiasm (and

possibly 39 more) for funding civic education. Let us make the road by walking, always learning

along the way.

 References

The Civic Mission of Schools, A Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York and CIRCLE:
The Center of Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2003.

Dionne, E. J. and Kayla Meltzer Dorogosz, United We Serve: The Debate Over National Service,
Campus Compact Reader, Winter 2003, page 23.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.

Eyler, J and Giles D. E. (1999). Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Eyler, J. S., Giles, D. E, Stenson, C. M. and Gray, C. J. (2001). "At a Glance: What we Know
About the Effects of Service-Learning on College Students, Faculty, Institutions and
Communities, 1993-2000: Third Edition. Vanderbilt University.

Gregorian, V. and Rimel, R., "A New Civics Lesson for our Kid," The Boston Globe, 24 March
2003, page A15.

Long, S. E. (2002). The New Student Politics. The Wingspread Statement on Student Civic
Engagement. Second Edition. Campus Compact, Brown University, Providence, RI.

McPhearson, M. S. (2003). A Message from Michael S McPhearson, President of Macalester

College, Campus Compact Reader, Winter 2003, page 22.

Pearson, S. S. and Voke, H. M. (2003). Building an Effective Citizenry: Lessons Learned from
Initiatives in Youth Engagement. Washington, DC: American Youth Forum.

Saltmarsh, J. (1996). "Education for Critical Citizenship: John Dewey's Contribution to the
Pedagogy of Community Service-Learning." Michigan Journal of Community Service-
Learning, Vol3, 13-21.

Schudson, M. (2003). How People Learn to be Civic, Campus Compact Reader, Winter 2003,
Page 14.

Spalding, M. (2003). Principles and Reforms for Citizen Service, The Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder, April 1, 2003.

Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2003). What Kind of Citizen? Political Choices and Educational
Goals, Campus Compact Reader, Winter 2003, page 1.

View publication stats