Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

Censorship and Civics Education: It’s a Touchy Subject


by Denise Dávila & Meghan Barnes - October 19, 2016

This commentary responds to the ways public school teachers have become the scapegoats for young Americans’ civic disengagement. Despite states’ curriculum standards that could support teens’ civic engagement, there are inherent and pervasive social norms related to top-down politics that govern school communities. Some public school teachers are forced to choose between censoring political topics from discussion or potentially diminishing their job security.

We are on the precipice of one of the most important U.S. election cycles where millennial voters (currently age 18 to 35) could influence the outcomes (Fry, 2016). Nevertheless, less than 50% of millennials anticipate voting in the imminent 2016 elections according to a new ABC News / Washington Post poll (Bump, 2016). Also, less than 20% of eligible voters ages 18 to 29 actually voted in the midterm elections of November 2014, which significantly influenced the current composition of the House and Senate (File, 2015). Given that most young millennials have only recently left high school, some have questioned whether their apathy is associated with the type of civics education they received as K–12 students (Wong, 2015). Others have pointed to public schools’ failure to teach youth how to engage in respectful discussions about divergent political perspectives, which aligns with the uncivil quality of today’s mainstream political discourse (Zimmerman, 2016).

 

We are two literacy researchers and teacher educators who are troubled by these propositions. We are also especially concerned about the ways public school teachers, including millennial teachers who represent up to 28% of the high school teaching force (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016), have become the scapegoats for young Americans’ civic disengagement. We believe that civics education should be a non-partisan priority for U.S. public schools. However, we also see that politicians’ reluctance to address civics education, which some describe as a “very politically touchy issue” (Wong, 2015, para. 11), is just one of the many tacit factors that disenfranchise youth from civic activities and spur routine censorship in some public school classrooms (Dávila & Barnes, forthcoming).

 

Although habitual censorship is incongruent with most states’ English Language Arts and civics education curriculum standards, public schools have shifted away from fostering students’ civic and community identities and instead focused on facilitating efficiency and assessment policies (Greene, Burke, & McKenna, 2016). As a result, unless they receive targeted training on guiding discussions about politics, some millennial teachers are unlikely to possess adequate models, apprenticeships of observation (Lortie, 1975), and/or pools of school memories (Le Fevre, 2011) for cultivating a culture of fairness that (a) provides equal space for divergent perspectives and (b) inhibits partisan-based humor, sarcasm, and/or judgment during conversations related to civic issues (Hess & McAvoy, 2014).

 

Models of civil and equitable civic discourse are likewise difficult to find as political candidates increasingly use media to salaciously denigrate their opponents on local, state, and national public stages. Today’s heightened level of political rancor is embraced as entertainment and has been dividing the public similar to the case of diehard fans of rivaling sports teams (Lane, 2015; Miller & Conover, 2015). However, this division was not always so antagonistic. Twelve to twenty years ago, long before most of our nation’s younger millennial teachers were even enrolled in high school, the country was considerably less polarized as Republicans’ and Democrats’ values were more ideologically aligned according to a Pew Research report (Dimock, Doherty, Kiley, & Oates, 2014). As described in the report,

 

In 1994 . . . the median Democrat was to the left of 64% of Republicans, while the median Republican was to the right of 70% of Democrats. Put differently, in 1994 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat; while 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today, those numbers are just 4% and 5%, respectively. (Dimock, Doherty, Kiley, & Oates, 2014, pp. 19–20)

 

At the same time that Republicans’ and Democrats’ ideologies were becoming more divergent and partisan-driven than they were in 1994, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 was passed. Similar to today’s Common Core State Standards, NCLB did not address students’ civic knowledge and prompted test preparation in other disciplines instead. Perhaps it was due to a combination of the growing partisan discord, rivalry, and increased testing in other subjects that some millennials did not experience the kind of public school education that would cultivate their voting habits for the 21st century.

 

Other factors have similarly contributed to the forms of school censorship that undermine the civic education of American youth. Some school districts’ tendencies to fire a teacher entirely based on a student’s, parent’s, and/or an observer’s complaint that s/he appeared to endorse certain forms of civic activism, political partisanship, and/or unpatriotic behavior have been dramatized in national news headlines (Algar, 2016; Blume, 2008; Huffington Post, 2012; Stroud, 2015). Correspondingly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2015) advises that teachers, “exercise caution so as not to give the appearance [of] . . . advocating a particular religious or political view in the classroom” (p. 2) because, legally speaking, what a public school teacher communicates to students is usually regarded as speech “on behalf of” the school district where the teacher is employed (ACLU, 2015, p. 1). Avoiding the risk of appearing to misrepresent one’s school district and offending students, parents, and/or other members of school communities in relatively homogeneous environments has led to the censorship of curriculum materials and literature inclusive of perspectives that differ from those of the dominant local group (Dávila, 2015). Some states even boast of high profile legacies of censorship designed to privilege the prevailing religious ideologies of their voting constituents by rejecting science textbooks that promoted evolution (Schafersman, 1982; Weaver, 2011). In short, there are clear indicators that the act of censoring divergent perspectives related to polemical topics like religion and politics is far more acceptable for some teachers than becoming the subjects of a complaint that could terminate their employment. Consequently, we acknowledge the inherent social norms that govern school communities, which lead some teachers to censor discussions related to politics despite states' curriculum standards that could support teens' civic engagement.


Using a sports analogy by extension, there are tacit rules of etiquette for teaching in a school community that is deeply loyal to a major league political team. Aside from possible trash talk outside of school, it is risky for a teacher to allocate time to the community’s rival because s/he might appear to be a traitor to the team. Should the local team lose the championship game, nobody wants to be reminded of this loss. Some communities even go into a period of mourning since the loss could have (or be perceived to have) serious long-term impacts on the community (e.g., reduced services, tax increases, policy changes, and shifts in social, civil, and environmental protections). Providing space to discuss the winning team’s initiatives could be perceived as rubbing salt into wounds. Unlike sports fans who wait a few months between seasons, partisan loyalists must endure a few years until their next contest. Therefore, it is not surprising that some teachers attempt to avoid upsetting local team morale.

 

In some communities, the corresponding social norms limiting the likelihood that teachers will broach political discussions with students are reinforced by top-down politics. By making students’ civics education and engagement a top priority, some politicians run the risk that youth might affiliate with their party’s rival team (Jones, 2014). The competition for governing power has not only stoked conflict, but also fueled new partisan voter identification laws and district reconfigurations that inhibit even eligible citizens from going to the voting polls (Berman & Kim, 2016). It is within this context that many state and locally elected officials make public policy and funding decisions to advance their party’s objectives.

 

In the right-to-work state where we conducted a study with young millennial teacher candidates (Dávila & Barnes, forthcoming), elected officials have adopted incongruent policies that influence civics education. On one hand, the state has endorsed the robust examination of political parties’ ideologies, the election process, and the critical interrogation of campaign texts, finances, and political media coverage related to elections for high school students. These curricular standards could support the kind of social justice education that cultivates a more civically engaged society. On the other hand, the state has also enacted employment policies where new teachers enter public schools on multi-year probationary contracts and non-probationary teachers can be fired with little or no recourse for receiving low ratings on a single performance evaluation regardless of their years of service. Anecdotally, we are aware of firsthand stories of single evaluation dismissals that have quietly circulated within some local school districts. Hence, it could be extremely risky for teachers who are worried about their job security to introduce divergent perspectives on the analyses of campaign texts and media coverage that could be construed as challenging the region’s dominant political affiliation. Many teacher candidates in our study were fearful of enacting such curricula because they did not want to appear to deviate from the unspoken social norms of partisan conformity in their school communities.

 

We are not suggesting that if some states' trickle down politics undermine students’ access to civics education then public school teachers (e.g., civil servants) should be alleviated of their responsibility to nurture the next generation’s political literacy and civic engagement. To the contrary, we believe that all public servants (e.g., elected officials) should support comprehensive civics education initiatives providing school faculty the kinds of non-partisan training, materials, and public relations resources necessary to help young adults develop into civically-minded habitual voters, which has far less to do with learning government facts than engaging with political processes (Plutzer, 2002).

 

We also acknowledge the role that teacher educators play in developing a political- and civic-minded teaching force. Teacher education programs have historically evaded the political nature of teaching and education (Picower, 2012) and potentially fostered a pool of educators who sidestep polemical discussions once they are employed. However, as we have highlighted in this essay, civics education neither occurs in a vacuum nor should be a risky proposition for political- and civic-minded teachers. As civil servants, all K–12 public school teachers should cultivate youth civic engagement through the critical discussion of diverse text and materials that represent varying views and perspectives. As for politicians, it is high time that they reject the partisan rancor and censorship that fuels their rivalry. Instead, they should embody their jobs as public servants to help American youth engage in, transform, and foster a more equitable democratic society for future generations.

 

References

 

Algar, S. (2016, April 22). Teacher axed for showing "Make Donald Drumpf Again" video.

New York Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2016/04/22/teacher-axed-for-showing-make-donald-drumpf-again-video/

 

American Civil Liberties Union (2015, October). Free speech rights of public school teachers in Washington state. Retrieved from https://www.aclu-wa.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Free%20Speech%20Rights%20of%20Teachers.pdf


Berman, A., & Kim, M. (2016, September 23). As states impose new voting restrictions, concerns mount about access to the polls. Forum. KQED, National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2016/09/22/as-states-impose-new-voting-restrictions-concerns-mount-about-access-to-the-polls/

 

Blume, H. (2008, June 12). School rallies around dismissed teacher. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/local/me-jordan12


Bump, P. (2016, September 29). Less than half of millennials think they’ll definitely vote in November. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/29/less-than-half-of-millennials-think-theyll-definitely-vote-in-november/


Dávila, D. (2015). #WhoNeedsDiverseBooks: Preservice teachers and religious neutrality with

children’s literature. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(1), 60–83.


Dávila, D., & Barnes, M. (forthcoming). Politically charged: Millennial teachers and civic

censorship in the English Language Arts.


Dimock, M., Doherty, C., Kiley, J., & Oates, R. (2014, June 12). Political polarization in the American public: How increasingly ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affects politics, compromise, and everyday life. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/6-12-2014-Political-Polarization-Release.pdf


File, T. (2015, July). Who votes: Congressional elections and the American electorate: 1978-2014. Document # P20-577. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

 

Fry, R. (2016, May 16). Millennials match Baby Boomers as largest generation in U.S. electorate, but will they vote? Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/16/millennials-match-baby-boomers-as-largest-generation-in-u-s-electorate-but-will-they-vote/

 

Greene, S., Burke, K. J., & McKenna, M. K. (2016). Youth voices, public spaces, and civic engagement. New York, NY: Routledge.

 

Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2014). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. New York, NY: Routledge.

 

Huffington Post. (2012, November 23). Kendra Baker, Kentucky teacher, under fire for “Can’t be a democrat and go to heaven” statement. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/23/kendra-baker-kentucky-tea_n_2179034.html


Jones, J. M. (2014, March 28). Young Americans’ affinity for Democratic Party has grown. Gallup.

Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/168125/young-americans-affinity-democratic-party-grown.aspx


Lane, C. (2015, August 5). It’s not just Donald Trump – politics has always been about   

entertainment. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/politics-as-spectacle/2015/08/05/97bc3e86-3b88-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html?utm_term=.0865663b8eb0


Le Fevre, D. M. (2011). Creating and facilitating a teacher education curriculum using preservice teachers’ autobiographical stories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 779–787.


Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

 

Miller, P. R., & Conover, P. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225–239.

 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Percentage of public school teachers of grades 9 through 12, by field of main teaching assignment and selected demographic and educational characteristics: 2011–12, Table 209.50. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_209.50.asp?current=yes

 

Picower, B. (2012). Practice what you teach: Social justice education in the classroom and the streets. New York, NY: Routledge.


Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.


Schafersman, S. (1982). Censorship of evolution in Texas. Creation Evolution Journal, 3(4), 30–34.


Stroud, R. (2015, June 28). Board dismisses teacher who stepped on flag in class. Journal Gazette & Times-Courier. Retrieved from http://jg-tc.com/news/board-dismisses-teacher-who-stepped-on-flag-in-class/article_46d9ba63-9c9e-554f-bf06-3152fac51c7d.html#utm_source=jg-tc&utm_campaign=most-popular-tabs-2&utm_medium=direct


Weaver, H. (2011). Saving souls. Index on Censorship, 40(4), 87–98.


Wong, A. (2015, September 17). Why civics is about more than citizenship. The Atlantic.

Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/civic-education-citizenship-test/405889/


Zimmerman, J. (2016, April 9). Civic education in the age of trump. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/civic-education-in-the-age-of-trump/477501/




Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: October 19, 2016
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 21686, Date Accessed: 8/8/2020 10:32:48 PM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
Article Tools
Related Articles

Related Discussion
 
Post a Comment | Read All

About the Author
  • Denise Dávila
    University of Nevada, Las Vegas
    E-mail Author
    DENISE DÁVILA is an Assistant Professor of Teaching and Learning at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
  • Meghan Barnes
    University of Georgia
    E-mail Author
    MEGHAN BARNES is a Graduate Teaching Assistant and PhD Student at the University of Georgia.
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS