Why the Fordham Institute's olive branch is a grave error ...
[link removed]
CounterCurrent:
Fordham Critique
Why the Fordham Institute's civics olive branch is a grave error.
CounterCurrent is the National Association of Scholars’ weekly newsletter, bringing you the biggest issues in academia and our responses to them.
[link removed]
Category: Civics Education; Reading Time: ~3 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------
** Featured Article - Critique of the Fordham Institute's "The State of State Standards for Civics and U.S. History in 2021" ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
The fight for traditional education and against the propagandistic drivel that threatens to supplant it takes place on many fronts. It takes place on school boards, where board members make crucial decisions regarding the direction their schools take. It takes place in PTA meetings, where dedicated parents advocate for the best interest of their children. And it takes place in the home, where those same parents attempt to supplement their children’s education with more reliable material.
But ultimately, schools will teach what their state standards make them teach. As important as school boards, PTA meetings, and other educational battlegrounds are, public and charter schools must follow state standards in order to grant their students diplomas. Even some homeschool students are required to be taught via these standards, and while private schools are exempt, they are required to adopt standards “aligned with” state standards, and are often even more radical in practice than the state standards would mandate.
All this to say, one of the keys to changing the way our children are taught is to influence state standards. In order to do that, though, we need brave souls to actually read and analyze the tomes of standards that state governments publish (yikes!). The Thomas B. Fordham Institute ([link removed]) is one organization that does this grueling, yet crucial work, and for much of its history, it has been a reliable guide for navigating the good, the bad, and the ugly of state education standards.
Take the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), for example. Earlier this year, the National Association of Scholars published Climbing Down ([link removed]) , a report that critiques the NGSS, the nation’s most popular science curriculum, and which relies heavily on the Fordham Institute’s research and comparative analysis of science standards. Fordham’s groundwork allowed us to build on their work and offer alternatives to the NGSS.
When it comes to civics and history education, though, the Fordham Institute has dropped the ball in a serious way. In June, the Institute published a national report titled The State of State Standards for Civics and U.S. History in 2021 ([link removed]) , a comprehensive report that examines and grades the civics and U.S. history standards for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This is an important project, and in theory it would be a valuable resource for students, parents, and educators alike. But in practice, it’s largely a trap, because it explicitly and repeatedly endorses the dangerous, misguided pedagogy known as “Action Civics.” For more on the dangers of Action Civics, click here ([link removed]) . Action Civics, in nearly all its real-world applications, replaces traditional, content-based civics education with progressive activist
training, and is therefore no civics education at all.
The Fordham Institute doesn’t get it all wrong. It includes valuable affirmations of the need for traditional civics education. But its strong embrace of Action Civics is alarming enough that we felt it necessary to critique The State of State Standards in detail. This week’s featured article ([link removed]) is just that: a long-form critique of Fordham’s review written by our very own director of research David Randall, who also heads up the Civics Alliance ([link removed]) . While Randall does give credit where credit is due, he doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to the Fordham Institute’s strong support for Action Civics:
Yet State Standards blends advocacy for traditional content with counterproductive advocacy for Action Civics. We believe that the Fordham Institute has erred in seeking to compromise with the proponents of a radical pedagogy, which cannot ultimately be reconciled with the traditional pedagogy that the Fordham Institute has historically forwarded. …
The Fordham Institute’s conflation of Action Civics and traditional civics means that Americans cannot use State Standards as a reliable tool to evaluate the 50 states’ standards in Civics and History. The Fordham Institute’s conflation is the opposite of impartial, because it subordinates State Standards to advocacy for the radical pedagogy of Action Civics.
Randall recommends that the Fordham Institute immediately reverses course on Action Civics and provides greater transparency as to its evaluative methods. The NAS used to rely on the Fordham Institute for its insightful analysis of education standards—we hope we can do so once again, but its recent work on civics and history standards is a major blemish on the organization’s reputation.
Until next week.
P.S. For more regular updates on American civics education, consider joining the Civics Alliance ([link removed]) . We have a biweekly newsletter ([link removed]) and are constantly uploading new information and new resources for Civics Alliance subscribers to use. It’s an invaluable tool to be on the cutting edge of this complex issue.
David Acevedo
Communications & Research Associate
National Association of Scholars
Read More ([link removed])
For more on Civics Education and Curricula:
[link removed]
July 22, 2021
** Three Pledges to Combat CRT and Action Civics in American Education ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter W. Wood
To equip American citizens to effect true change in their schools, NAS has created three pledges: one for school board candidates, one for state office candidates, and one for voters.
[link removed]
July 22, 2021
** Civics Showdown in Texas, NEA Endorses CRT, and New Resources Galore ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
David Randall
Read the ninth issue of Resolute, our new Civics Alliance newsletter informing you about the most urgent issues in civics education.
[link removed]
July 7, 2021
** Training Students to Protest Doesn't a Civics Education Make ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Sailer
A good civics education prepares students to form their own political beliefs. Protest civics bypasses that preparation, integrating substantive political goals right into the classroom.
[link removed]
June 23, 2021
** Tracking American Civics Legislation ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------
David Randall
UPDATED: We're tracking every proposed American civics education bill, both on the federal and state level, and have organized our data here for public use.
** About the NAS
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Scholars, founded in 1987, emboldens reasoned scholarship and propels civil debate. We’re the leading organization of scholars and citizens committed to higher education as the catalyst of American freedom.
============================================================
Follow NAS on social media.
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
** Donate ([link removed])
| ** Join ([link removed])
| ** Renew ([link removed])
| ** Bookstore ([link removed])
Copyright © 2021 National Association of Scholars, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website, membership or donation forms, contact forms at events, or by signing open letters.
Our mailing address is:
National Association of Scholars
420 Madison Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10017-2418
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
