Civics to return to Illinois schools in 2020

Here's a revolutionary concept: Teach high school students their duties as citizens in a democracy.

Gov. Bruce Rauner has signed into a law a bill that would require one semester of civics in high schools in Illinois beginning in 2020. No one seems to know when public schools in this state began phasing out civics classes, but the best guess is sometime in the 1980s.


According to Maryam Judar, executive director of the Citizen Advocacy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that lobbied for the legislation, the idea is to teach students "news literacy," critical thinking, explain how to discuss politics with others in a "courteous, civil" manner, while defending their positions using facts, instead of biased personal opinion.

The idea sounds simple, but apparently provoked an outpouring of criticism from educators and others, who may be afraid of the very concept of engaging students in vigorous, honest debate.

Imagine, the implications of discussing news stories about abortion, capital punishment, immigration, national health care, or, the value of public education itself. In the United States today a discussion about any interesting topic is likely to provoke cries of outrage from the left, the right, civil liberties organizations, religious groups and elected officials seeking to make a name for themselves.

I don't know why schools in Illinois got away from teaching civics as a free-standing course, but I'm guessing many teachers and school officials found it made life a lot easier to avoid the entire concept of thought-provoking debate on the most controversial issues of the day.

And that's how you end up with a population that gets most of its "news" from social media, regardless of how biased the source is or how fabricated the information.

For public consumption, school superintendents, teachers groups and others involved in public education voiced concerns about their ability to get civics courses up and running this fall, and argued that at a time of dwindling financial resources they couldn't afford the additional costs required.

Those costs included professional training for teachers, which will apparently be covered for the first three years by grants from the Robert R. McCormick Foundation and other private entities that believe civics has some real value to society.

According to Judar, there are only 10 other states, in addition to Illinois, that don't require civics in their public schools.

Illinois requires social studies courses, which may include a few hours of civics, but there is no set criteria for what that would entail.

This state also requires testing on the U.S. Constitution at both the elementary and high school levels, but that likely amounts to memorizing the history and the amendments, but not necessarily the reason behind any of it.

My own experience, having covered hundreds of village board, school board and library board meetings, indicates that few Americans even comprehend the words of the Pledge of Allegiance recited at the outset of most of those assemblies. With hands placed over their hears, people say, "....and liberty and justice for all," and minutes later are likely to renounce religious liberty, advocate the imposition of laws that restrict civil liberties, or shame someone for refusing to say those words by questioning their patriotism.

So what is civic education?

A task force assembled by the Illinois State Board of Education, in a report prepared for the governor, stated it should mean "news literacy," an understanding and awareness of issues affecting their communities. Students should have a "capacity to think critically; and have a willingness to enter into a dialogue with others about different points of view and to respect diverse perspectives."

Civics should explain to students how they can participate, in groups "that offer opportunities to participate in public service, work together to overcome problems and explore an array of cultural, social, political, and religious interests and beliefs."


The courses should teach students how to "act politically," the task force stated. That would mean making sure "They have the skills, knowledge and commitment to participate effectively in the political process — for instance, by organizing people to address social issues, solving problems, exercising news literary, petitioning and protesting to influence public policy, and voting."

Finally, the task force said responsible citizens should demonstrate a concern "for the rights and welfare of others, are socially responsible, are willing to listen to alternative perspectives, understand their capacity to make a difference, and are ready to contribute personally to civic and political causes."

Responsible citizens "strike a reasonable balance between their own interests and the common good, they recognize the importance of and practice civic duties such as voting and respecting the rule of law."

Of course, a debate over Dr. Martin Luther King's use of civil disobedience to obtain civil rights for blacks, or of Henry David Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax (resulting in his imprisonment), or even the Founding Fathers refusal to obey the laws of their king, might prove challenging, when it comes to that notion of "respecting the law."

Judar noted opponents of the mandatory civics training expressed fears that teachers would indoctrinate students with their own political beliefs.

That's where the training of social studies teachers, who would teach the civics classes, becomes essential. In theory, at least, they would be taught how to provoke discussions about controversial topics and significant news events, without imparting a bias.

Socrates, a wise old Greek, is considered the model for this sort of thing. He would ask his students a series of questions designed to test their ability to think logically and provoke them to challenge their own beliefs. It is sometimes considered the essence of scientific method, which ought to be a good thing, but there are a lot of people around these days who don't like science very much.

There are probably many courageous teachers out there already teaching civic lessons in history, English and science. At least I hope someone is telling students about Galileo, convicted of heresy for holding the belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. Of course, it should be remembered that Galileo was forced to agree that he would not teach the truth and was placed under house arrest.

Ever since, there has been a long and colorful history of teachers punished for explaining simple truths.

That said, the people behind this civics initiative quote Thomas Jefferson, the revolutionary who said that the fate of democracy depends on a well-informed electorate.

An enlightened citizenry, Jefferson said, is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise their oversight.


"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education," Jefferson wrote. He also stated, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone."

There has been an emphasis on the importance of science, math and training students for the workforce in recent years, with an abundance of tests to measure their knowledge now required.

But there has been little said about teaching students to think for themselves and even less importance attached to the concept of citizenship, the foundation on which our government is built. We the people are the government in this great country, and far too often we deny responsibility for its behavior, blaming those we elect, or faceless institutions for problems. I have little hope that a semester of civics will make any significant impact, but it is gratifying to know there are still some who value the concept and recognize the need to impart some sense of social responsibility to future generations.

The fact that both Democrats and Republicans here in Illinois could agree to that is rather surprising, since they often seem to forget they are the public's servants.