New Report: Most U.S. Students Fail Civics, History & Geography
The majority of American 8th graders failed a nationwide test of proficiency in civics, history and geography in 2014, according to a recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The report underscores the need for creative approaches to nurture a culture of learning in everyday life.
More than 29,000 8th graders in public and private schools nationwide participated in the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The students answered multiple choice and open-ended questions on the following themes:
Geography: space and place, environment and society, spatial dynamics and connections
U.S. Civics: defining politics, government and civic life, U.S. political system, government embodiment of American democracy, U.S. relationship to other nations, and role of citizens
U.S. History: democracy, culture, technology and world role
The results show that 27% of 8th graders scored proficient or advanced in geography, 23% scored so in civics, and just 18% did in U.S. history. Further, the vast majority of these students scored proficient; only 3%, 2% and 1% of all students tested scored advanced in geography, civics and history, respectively. The remaining majority of students demonstrated basic or below-basic knowledge:
Geography: 48% basic, 25% below basic
U.S. Civics: 51% basic, 26% below basic
U.S. History: 53% basic, 29% below basic
The good news is that overall student scores have improved slightly in civics (from 150 to 154 out of 300 points), and history (from 259 to 267 out of 500 points) from 1994 to 2014, with the lowest performing students showing some of the strongest gains in all three subject areas. The bad news is that the improvements overall over the last twenty years have indeed been slight, and that most students still fail to attain proficiency.
The NAEP is the largest nationally representative and ongoing test of U.S. students’ knowledge in math, science, reading, writing, the arts, civics, geography, economics, American history, and since 2014, in technology and engineering. The first national assessments were conducted in 1969, and have since occurred every two to four years. The NAEP tests students at critical 4th, 8th and 12th grade junctures, and provides a rich, long-term measure of educational proficiency and progress.
I suspect that if NAEP tested the same students’ knowledge of major league sports, video games, movies and television entertainment alongside geography, civics, history and the other subjects it tests, their scores would be higher on the former. I say this less to denigrate students for what they are drawn to. Afterall, most if not all human beings, not just young students, tend to be more attracted to entertainment than education, especially because popular entertainment is typically more visual, fast, simple, emotional, attractive and/or extraordinary while learning is typically slow, complex, rational and challenging.
For these reasons, for most kids most if not all their education happens in schools, where children are required or feel compelled to go. Outside of school though, now perhaps more than ever, children lead very different lives. With intensifying educational and job competition plus rising income and wealth inequality, upper and upper-middle class parents are investing more money and time into after-school and weekend enrichment – tutoring, test prep, music, arts, travel, etc. – (not to mention better schools) for their kids (Lareau 2003, Putnam 2015). In contrast, lower-income parents often don’t have the resources or wherewithal for such investment so their kids are more likely to play on their own, naturally gravitating to video games, TV, and other alluring entertainment.
Of course, much can still be done in schools to improve student learning, but a lot of public discourse on education pays insufficient attention to what happens outside of school. There is, no doubt, much and longstanding interest in how families, nonprofits and governments can nurture children’s development (e.g., see Cotton & Wikelund 1989, Carter 2002, Harvard Family Research Project 2012). But there is less attention paid to developing new ways to nurture a wider culture of learning to counter the pervasive entertainment industry. Educational video games are proliferating, yet still constitute a small fraction of video game sales.
Learning Life’s approach to nurturing a wider culture of learning is different. By spreading knowledge (e.g., facts, questions, comparisons) on important public topics from food psychology to terrorism through everyday surfaces – napkins, placemats, fortune cookies as well as PCs, tablets and phones via our website and social media pages – we’re working to develop not deliberate learning, but incidental learning: the unplanned occasions for learning in everyday life. Using everyday surfaces to spur incidental learning is not a panacea, but it is a largely undeveloped tool for nurturing a wider culture of learning, especially among the too many students failing knowledge tests like NAEP.
Cotton, Kathleen, and Karen Reed Wikelund. 1989. “Parental Involvement in Education.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research & Improvement.
Putnam, Robert D. 2015. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Five Facts on Net Neutrality & Open Internet
The internet has changed the way people find information, conduct business, and keep in touch. For many people, it is an indispensable part of their lives. However, an ongoing struggle is taking place over how the internet is provided and how open it is, a struggle pitting cable companies against “open internet” advocates. The following five facts offer some context on that struggle.
Special thanks to Learning Life content writer Craig Gusmann for helping to research and draft these facts.
1) Net Neutrality
Net neutrality, a term coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, essentially means that the government should treat all data on the internet equally. This means that data cannot be tampered with in any way, regardless of where it originates from. For example, a web page created by a person in Idaho should load at the same speeds as a web page created by a multi-billion dollar corporation in NYC. Advocates of net neutrality argue that it is a vital component of an open internet easily accessible to everyone.
2) Open Internet
While the internet has been around since the 1970s, and publicly accessible since the late 1980s, then Vice President Al Gore helped advance the idea of an open internet in a 1994 speech he gave to The Superhighway Summit at UCLA. Gore asked, “How can government ensure that the nascent Internet will permit everyone to be able to compete with everyone else for the opportunity to provide any service to all willing customers? Next, how can we ensure that this new marketplace reaches the entire nation? And then how can we ensure that it fulfills the enormous promise of education, economic growth and job creation?”
3) Unnecessary Government Regulation
This is one of the common arguments levelled against net neutrality. According to opponents, net neutrality sets a precedent of government interference, making it easier for the government to control the internet in the future. Opponents also argue that net neutrality harms innovation because for-profit companies that control internet access cannot create “slow lanes” and “fast lanes,” charging internet content providers and/or consumers more for faster service, and hence that companies have less monetary incentive to improve their internet services and infrastructure.
4) Blocking, Throttling and Fast Lanes
On February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to apply Title II of the 1934 Communications Act to internet providers, reclassifying broadband internet access as a telecommunications service and, therefore, similar to a public utility. There are three main rules in the FCC’s decision: 1) no blocking of access to “legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices”; 2) no “throttling” or degrading of any internet traffic; and 3) No “fast lane” prioritization of the content of favored partners or in exchange for payment.
5) The FCC
The Federal Communications Commission “regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.” The FCC is composed of five commissioners, each serving a five-year term. Each commission is appointed by the U.S. President then confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
According to the FCC, “Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business.” This, however, does not stop any President from nominating and the Senate from confirming commissioners who will likely vote as they see fit, whether in favor of cable companies, or internet consumers. This is one of the many ways that U.S. Presidents and the U.S. Senate directly impact citizens lives, in this case their internet access. And the changing composition of the FCC as commissioner terms end and new commissioners are appointed by changing Presidents and Senate majorities make internet access an ongoing struggle.
Why do acronyms for international organizations matter? Acronyms are abbreviations of names, frequently the first letter of each word in a name. Acronyms are often used for the sake of efficiency or brevity in discussions on television, radio and other media, as well as in public meetings and casual conversations. Thus, it makes sense for individuals to know the meaning of common acronyms in order to better understand what is being discussed. This is perhaps especially true in international relations, which affect us often more than we realize, and in which acronyms are often used to summarize long names of organizations, treaties, policies, etc., The following Learning Life quiz introduces readers to five commonly referenced acronyms and the important international organizations they represent.
Note: Special thanks to Learning Life intern, Kane Boynton, for conducting the research for this quiz, and drafting the questions and answers.
Information, Knowledge & Inequality in Modern Societies
On some basic level, all human societies no matter how old, simple or small, depend on information and knowledge. But information and knowledge are far more developed and central to life in modern societies, even as they become more unequally distributed.
The line between “information” and “knowledge” is frequently blurred in ordinary conversation, but it is worth delineating the two terms. Information may be simply defined as data, and data includes facts, concepts and theory, with theory used to connect and lend coherence to what can otherwise be a disconnected jumble of facts and concepts. Knowledge, in turn, can be understood as the varying levels of personal or collective mastery of information. While information is stored on paper or computers, knowledge is stored in people’s minds. One may certainly argue with the way I differentiate knowledge and information here, but the distinction has the benefit of highlighting that (a) individuals and societies vary in their knowledge, and (b) data is in people’s heads and/or out there in the world.
Individuals and societies’ knowledge depends in no small part on how freely available information is. Early human hunter-gatherer groups had relatively small stocks of knowledge that were transmitted mostly orally from generation to generation. Knowledge in such societies was not very unequally distributed because there was not much of it, and that which existed – on how to hunt or gather and prepare food, create clothes, weapons and shelter, make sense of their environment – was often widely shared to help ensure material and cultural survival.
However, as humans settled, developed agriculture, print and industry, the stock of information and knowledge grew substantially, as did the division of labor. As Adam Smith, widely considered the founder of modern economics, long ago noted in his classic study, The Wealth of Nations (1776), division of labor is vital to increasing the efficiency and wealth that mark modern societies. As labor and tools became more sophisticated, it made sense to make people specialize their labor, so they could each get better by focusing, and together, they could produce so much more.
Yet Smith also recognized that the division of labor increases inequality. As people specialize their work, some get menial labor that limits their capacities, including their knowledge, while others get substantive work that expands their capacities. Of course, people can and sometimes do pursue knowledge off the job, but the very unequal status, work and resources different jobs afford make for enormous differences not just in income, but in knowledge accumulation over years. Worse, people tend to pass on their unequal capacities and resources to their children, as numerous social scientists have documented (e.g., Bourdieu 1984, Lareau 2003, Murray 2012, Putnam 2015).
Just as there are sharp (and growing) income and wealth inequalities in the contemporary world (see Piketty 2014), so too are there sharp inequalities in education and knowledge. Inequality has existed in all human societies, but its extent varies widely depending in part on the extent of division of labor and the distribution of power, that is, who does what work and who controls what resources.
What economists call “information asymmetry” – situations in which one or more individuals have more or better information than others – is especially common in modern societies, where specialized information is essential to everything we own and do, from smart phones and laptops to cars and homes to stocks and bonds, and from eating and exercising to commuting, working, even playing.
It’s not difficult to think of many common situations in modern societies in which people rely on those with more or better knowledge – teachers, coaches, doctors, tour guides, salespeople, repair-people, financial advisors – some if not all of whom have interests that do not align with those they are advising or guiding. Those who know more have an interest in withholding what they know, especially when that knowledge is power. Information asymmetry and knowledge inequality are inescapable problems in part because of such withholding, and because division of labor is necessary to the complex operation and productivity of modern societies.
Furthermore, the modern world has become flooded with information, and not all that information is equal in value. As I have argued elsewhere, it is well worth distinguishing between trivial information – like who’s dating who in Hollywood, who’s winning at what sport, what are the latest fashions – and significant information (the latter I call signia – how to cook safely, administer first aid, operate a smart phone, get a job, or how governments, economies and ecologies work. Just as there is junk food and healthy food, in the world of information, there is trivia and there is signia. As easy, exciting and profitable as trivial information can be, often the most boring or complicated information is the most important (e.g., think economics).
Pervasive trivia, information asymmetry, and knowledge inequality are all common features of modern societies. And yet, modern democratic societies have an interest in more knowledgeable citizens because knowledge helps people make better decisions, whether as workers, parents, voters, consumers, or else. Accordingly, it behooves governments, nonprofits and others interested in nurturing citizens’ capacities to think of creative ways to spread signia and reduce knowledge inequalities.
Printing signia on everyday surfaces (napkins, placemats, posters, cereal boxes, etc.), as Learning Life does, is not a panacea. Yet it is a still relatively undeveloped path to engaging more people in learning signia, whether that’s how to recognize the signs of stroke, where to find work, what local nonprofits are doing good work in the community, or else. We are excited to be developing that path, and are happy to connect with others developing similar paths to informing and engaging more citizens.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Murray, Charles. 2012. Coming Apart. New York: Crown Forum.
Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Putnam, Robert. 2015. Our Kids. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Smith, Adam. 1937 (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House. (more…)
The good news is that overall student scores have improved slightly in civics (from 150 to 154 out of 300 points), and history (from 259 to 267 out of 500 points) from 1994 to 2014, with the lowest performing students showing some of the strongest gains in all three subject areas. The bad news is that the improvements overall over the last twenty years have indeed been slight, and that most students still fail to attain proficiency.
