No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 May 2020
According to various studies of political socialization, only the immediate family may have more impact upon the development of the child's political values and partisan allegiances than the school system. And in the areas of citizenship education and patriotic inculcations the school is usually defined as the primary facilitator. Because citizenship education is considered to be indoctrinational, value laden, and non-neutral, it has generated considerable controversy. Some consider citizenship education to be a vital function of the schools, while others feel it should not receive particular attention.
Concerted efforts by education theorists and educational associations to define the proper role and objectives of citizenship education span the twentieth century.
1 The primacy of the family's role in political socialization is one that students of the subject matter do not agree on. In one of the first major works on the topic, Herbert Hyman states authoritatively that foremost among socializing agencies is the family. Herbert Hyman, Political Socialization (New York: Free Press, 1959). However, by 1975, two noted students of childhood political socialization, Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, concluded as a result of their study of Chicago youth that the school was the most important and effective instrument of political socialization. Robert D. Hess and Judith V. Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine, 1967). The exact importance of the family compared to other agents continues to be a matter of disagreement among social scientists.
2 On this conclusion, students of political socialization are in much greater agreement.
3 While there is diversity of opinion over how much stress schools should give to civic education, the degree of agreement on what such courses should accomplish is fairly strong. Kenneth Langton and M. Kent Jennings note that general agreement exists that civic courses should increase the student's knowledge about political institutions and processes, make him a more interested and loyal citizen, increase his understanding of his own rights and the civil rights of others, and encourage his political participation. Kenneth P. Langton and M. Kent Jennings, “Political Socialization and the High School Civics Curriculum in the United States,” American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), pp. 852-867.
4 For a brief overview of some of the major past and present efforts to develop citizenship goals for secondary education, see R. Freeman Butts, “Historical Perspective,” in Jan K. Hamilton, ed., Education and Citizenship (Denver Colo.: U.S. Office of Education, 1977), pp. 1-11; Daniel W. Marshall, “Citizenship: The Evolution of Educational Goals,” in Franklin D. Patterson, ed., The Adolescent Citizen (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960), pp. 50-69; and Stanley E. Diamond, “Studies and Projects in Citizenship Education,” in Patterson, ed., Ibid., pp. 70-99.
5 Committee on Pre-Collegiate Education, .“Political Education in the Public Schools: The Challenge for Political Science,” PS (1971), pp. 431-460.
6 Ibid.
7 The Social Studies Development Center at Indiana University was the headquarters for the development of the High School Curriculum Project.
8 Hamilton, ed., op. cit.
9 National Task Force on Citizenship Education, Education for Responsible Citizenship: The Report of the National Task Force on Citizenship Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977).
10 Citizen Education Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 1 (August, 1977), 1-2,4.
11 The Council for the Advancement of Citizenship is housed at the same address as the Center for Citizenship Education. The location is 1100 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC, 20036.
12 Changes in Political Knowledge and Attitudes, 1969-76 (Denver, Colo.: National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1978).
13 Education for Citizenship: A Bicentennial Survey (Denver, Colo.: National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1976).
14 ‘NCSS Cities’ Citizenship Education Needs,” National Council for the Social Studies press release, February 2, 1978.
15 R.A. Hill and J.D. Wallace, Recommendations for Research, Development, and Dissemination for Ethical-Citizenship Education (Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1976).
16 Mark Blum, Ethical-Citizenship Education Policies and Programs: A National Survey of State Education Agencies (Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1977).
17 Fred M. Newmann, Thomas A. Bertocci, and Ruthanne M. Landsness, Skills in Citizen Action: An English-Social Studies Program for Secondary Schools (Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company, 1977).
18 Ann P. Maust and Lucy Knight, An Analysis of the Role of the U.S. Office of Education and Other Selected Federal Agencies in Citizen Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1978).
19 The person most responsible for pushing for the creation of the National Center was Russell Hill of Research for Better Schools in Philadelphia.
20 In April, 1979, Representative Carl Perkins (D-KY) and Representative Charles Bennett (DFL) proposed a grants program for states to promote citizenship education in elementary and secondary schools but it was not reported out of committee.
21 Cynthia A. Kelly, ed., A Dictionary of Law-Related Education Projects, 3rd ed. (Chicago: ABA Committee on Youth Education for Citizenship, 1978).
22 Final regulations on the program can be found in the Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 11 (January 16, 1981), 3877-3882.
23 Street Law News, Vol. 1, Issue 1 (Spring, 1981), p. 1.