Você está na página 1de 29

ERIC Identifier: ED285801

Publication Date: 1987-05-00


Author: Patrick, John J.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education Bloomington IN.

Education on the U.S. Constitution. ERIC Digest No. 39.


The United States of America, a comparatively young country, has the world's oldest written
constitution. In 1787, this Constitution was a striking innovation, a breakthrough in the
establishment of republican self-government. Since 1787, this Constitution has been the
preeminent symbol of American nationhood and a practical instrument of free government
(popular government limited by law to protect the liberty and security of individuals).
Furthermore, this Constitution has had an enormous influence on governments around the world.
According to Albert Blaustein, a specialist in the comparative study of constitutions, "The United
States Constitution is this nations's most important export" (1984, p. 14).

The bicentennial of the Consitution provides a special opportunity for renewal and improvement
of education on basic values and principles of American constitutional government, which are
essential elements of national unity and cohesion in a pluralistic society. These ideas are relevant
and valuable to all Americans, regardless of their social differences, and must be understood and
used by all who would exercise fully their rights and responsibilities of citizenship. What is the
status of education on the Constitution in American secondary schools? This ERIC digest
examines (1) treatment of the Constitution in the curriculum of secondary schools, (2) public
opinion and knowledge about the Constitution, and (3) guidelines for improvement of education
on the Constitution.

HOW IS THE CONSTITUTION TREATED IN THE CURRICULUM OF SECONDARY


SCHOOLS?

State government mandates, public expectations, and educational traditions indicate the secure
place of constitutional studies in the curriculum. Throughout the United States, students study
the Constitution through required courses in American history, government, and civics. Most
Americans are exposed to formal education on the Constitution at least three times in secondary
school: (1) in a junior high-middle school American history course, (2) in a high school
American history course, and (3) in a high school American government or civics course.

Although it is established in the secondary school curriculum, education on the Constitution has
suffered from neglect and routine treatment. Assessments of curriculum guides indicate lengthy
lists of concepts and topics about American constitutional government. However, there also are
long lists of other goals pertaining to a broad range of concerns from environmental issues and
global perspectives to social change and futuristic studies. The educational agenda is cluttered,
and priorities often are unclear. In many schools, goals for study of the Consitution may be
viewed as no more important than a vast array of competing purposes of education in the social
studies.
Studies of standard secondary school textbooks have revealed restricted coverage and shallow
treatment of basic principles, values, and issues of constitutional government. During the 1960s
and 1970s, coverage of social history expanded at the expense of political history (including
constitutional history).

It seems that study of the Constitution has all too often been overshadowed by trendy topics and
curriculum fads. There is an underemphasis on the Constitution relative to other topics of lesser
importance in citizenship education. In a recent study of the Constitution in American culture,
historian Michael Kammen concludes: "The Constitution is too often neglected or poorly taught
in American schools" (1986, p. 24).

WHAT DO ASSESSMENTS OF THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES


REVEAL ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEGLECTING EDUCATION ON THE
CONSTITUTION?

Various studies over the years have indicated that Americans tend to have great pride in their
Constitution, but this veneration is not coupled with ample knowledge and deep understanding.
Too many Americans are insufficiently educated about their Constitution.

A recent nationwide survey found that many Americans appear to be deficient in both knowledge
and appreciation of fundamental values, principles, and issues of their constitutional government
(Hearst Report, 1987). For example, about half of the respondents believed that the President can
suspend the Constitution in the event of war or national emergency. Sixty percent said that the
President, acting alone, can appoint a member of the Supreme Court. Fifty-seven percent thought
that local schools can require children to pledge allegiance to the flag. Only 50 percent knew that
a Supreme Court decision can be overruled. Nearly half revealed ignorance of both American
government and the ideas of Karl Marx when they said that the following statement is part of the
Constitution: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Various studies of American youth during the past thirty years corroborate the conclusions of the
recent Hearst survey (NAEP, 1983; Patrick and others, 1986). In addition, they have revealed
that many students have a flawed understanding and appreciation of certain core values of free
government, such as guaranteeing freedom of expression and political participation under law to
all--even to very unpopular or despised individuals or groups (Elam, 1984). Furthermore,
Americans tend to be insufficiently informed about perennial issues generated by paradoxes of
their Constitution: (1) how to have a powerful government that is also strictly limited by law; (2)
how to have government by the people that also prohibits majorities from oppressing individuals
or minorities; (3) how to have both separation and sharing of powers among three branches of
government; (4) how to have a supreme national government without violating certain rights and
powers reserved to the state governments; (5) how to maintain national security while also
protecting certain rights of individuals, including dissenters.

HOW CAN EDUCATION ON THE CONSTITUTION BE IMPROVED?


Assessments of the secondary school curriculum and the public's knowledge and attitudes
suggest the need to renew and improve education on the Constitution. The following guidelines
might be used to help to meet this need:

--Assign high priority to goals of education on the Constitution. --Expand coverage of the
Constitution in standard courses such as American history, government, and civics. --Blend
social history with political history--including constitutional history--so that there is a balance
between these two domains of content in standard American history courses. --Emphasize the
applicability of the Constitution to the common concerns of citizens--the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship. --Integrate knowledge of principles and values of the Constitution
with facts about the structure and operations of government in the past and present; students need
to know both major concepts and information that pertains to these ideas. --Examine major
issues of the past and present that are associated with paradoxes of American constitutional
government, such as majority rule with protection of minority rights. --Obtain high quality
learning materials on the Constitution that can be used readily to complement standard
textbooks.

By following the guidelines in the preceding list, Americans may revitalize and enhance
education on the Constitution during the bicentennial period and beyond it. By so doing, we may
sustain the values and institutions of free government.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Blaustein, Albert P. "The United States Constitution: A Model in Nation-Building." NATIONAL


FORUM 54 (1984): 14-17, 38.

Burroughs, Wynell G., and Jean West Mueller. USING DOCUMENTS TO TEACH THE
CONSTITUTION. ED 273 547.

Elam, Stanley M. "Anti-democratic Attitudes of High School Students in the Orwell Year." PHI
DELTA KAPPAN 65 (1984): 327-332.

Hearst Report. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:


A NATIONAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PERSONAL OPINION. New
York: The Hearst Corporation, 1987. ED 289 812.

Kammen, Michael. A MACHINE THAT WOULD GO OF ITSELF: THE CONSTITUTION IN


AMERICAN CULTURE. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL STUDIES


ACHIEVEMENT OF YOUNG AMERICANS: 1981-82 PERFORMANCE AND CHANGES
BETWEEN 1976 AND 1982. REPORT 13-CS-01. Denver: Education Commission of the States,
1983. ED 236 247.
Patrick, John J., Richard C. Remy, and Mary Jane Turner. EDUCATION ON THE
CONSTITUTION IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS. Bloomington, IN: Social Studies Development
Center and ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education, 1986. ED 278 598.

Patrick, John J. and Richard C. Remy. LESSONS ON THE CONSTITUTION. Washington, DC:
Project '87 of the American Historical Association and American Political Science Association,
l985. ED 258 891.

Patrick, John J., and Richard C. Remy. "Development of Lessons on the Constitution." THE
SOCIAL STUDIES 76 (1985): 9-12.

Schechter, Stephen L., ed. TEACHING ABOUT AMERICAN FEDERAL DEMOCRACY.


Philadelphia: Center for Study of Federalism at Temple University/1984, ED 248 161.

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-926/constitution.htm
ERIC Identifier: ED464892
Publication Date: 2002-05-00
Author: Drake, Frederick D. - Nelson, Lynn R.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education Bloomington IN.

Teaching about Federalism in the United States. ERIC


Digest.

Although it was not directly named in the Constitution, federalism is a central principle of
government in the United States of America. It is important for all students to learn about
federalism so they can comprehend the federal system in the United States and recognize
examples of federalism in other countries. Teaching and learning about federalism, therefore, is
essential to education for citizenship in a democracy. This Digest (1) defines federalism and
discusses basic characteristics of the U.S. federal system; (2) provides an overview of the
changing nature of federalism in the United States and internationally; (3) calls upon teachers to
conduct deliberative discussions of federalism in relationship to other principles of constitutional
democracy; and (4) recommends Internet resources related to federalism.

DEFINING FEDERALISM.
The word federal denotes alliances between independent sovereignties. "The Oxford Guide to the U.S.
Government," an important source for any student or teacher of history, describes federalism in the
United States as "the division of governmental powers between the national and state governments."
"The Oxford Guide" informs us that "state governments can neither ignore nor contradict federal
statutes that conform to the supreme law, the Constitution" (Patrick, Pious, and Ritchie 2001, 234-235).
Unlike a confederation, a federal republic does not permit a state to have full or primary sovereignty
over its internal affairs. If a conflict exists between the state and federal government, the supremacy
clause mandates that federal laws are supreme. The powers of the central or national government
typically are enumerated in a written constitution.

Under the U.S. Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the national government are
presumed to be retained by state governments. State governments have their own spheres of
jurisdiction and often have been extolled as important laboratories for governmental
experimentation. Throughout United States history, individuals have argued that the states are
better able than the national government to respond effectively to public policy issues. Others
seek the strength of the national government, particularly during times of crisis.

The U.S. federal system has five basic characteristics:

* Federalism provides a division of legal authority between state and national governments.
Overlap occurs, but two legally distinct spheres of government exist.
* The states are subordinate to the national government in such areas as management of foreign
affairs and regulation of interstate commerce.

* Federalism enables positive cooperation between state and national governments in programs
pertaining to education, interstate highway construction, environmental protection and health,
unemployment, and social security concerns.

* The U.S. Supreme Court serves as legal arbiter of the federal system in regard to conflicting
claims of state and national governments.

* The two levels of government exercise direct authority simultaneously over people within their
territory. Dual citizenship exists under federalism, and individuals can claim a wide range of
rights and privileges from both state and national governments.

Political scientists define two types of federalism: dual and cooperative. From one vantage point,
federalism can be viewed as a "layer" cake (dual); from another it may be pictured as a
"rainbow" or "marble" cake (cooperative).

Proponents of states' rights and powers hold that the Constitution is a compact between the states
and the federal government. Both states and the national government are supreme within their
own spheres. Advocates of dual federalism argue that the national government cannot "invade"
the power that is reserved for the states.

Proponents of the position that the people, not the states, created the federal government want a
cooperative approach to state-nation relations. Cooperative federalism emphasizes the "general
welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution by which power of the
national government may be expanded even if the actions of the national government touch or
overlap with traditional state functions.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF FEDERALISM.


The principle of American federalism, created in the eighteenth century, was bold and has greatly
affected U.S. history. Its influence continues today. During the late 1780s the debates over ratification of
the Constitution by Federalists and Anti-Federalists shaped controversies concerning the rights and
powers of states in relation to the federal government.

The ideas stated in the "Federalist" papers are at the core of civic culture in the United States and
serve as a reference for citizens in other democratic nations of the world. The 15th through the
22nd "Federalist" papers, for example, discuss the defects of the Articles of Confederation, the
federal system that preceded ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The 39th "Federalist" paper
shows that federalism provided by the U.S. Constitution is a compound system that conjoins
national and state powers. Other papers in the "Federalist" that are especially helpful in
explaining federalism in the United States include the 10th, 14th, 45th, and 51st.

The balance of power between national and state governments and consequent changes in
federalism have evolved in U.S. history. National government power generally has expanded
over state power through Supreme Court decisions, constitutional amendments, executive orders,
and federal statutes. Nineteenth century states' rights proponents exemplify reactions to a
stronger national government. Twentieth century influences concerning the growth of national
government power within the federal system were initiated by events associated with two World
Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, and civil rights movements. From the Nixon to the
Reagan-Bush administrations, however, "New Federalism" sought to return power to the states.

During the Clinton presidency, the year 1996 was identified as the so-called "Devolution
Revolution" as more powers, such as those pertaining to economic regulations and social
welfare, were directed from the federal government to the states. By 1997 the development of the
"New Federal Order" meant less intrusion by the federal government into the affairs of state
governments.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the issue of national security in respect to terrorist
threats calls into question the fractious relationship between peoples and governments
throughout the world. The issue of creating unity and protecting security and individual rights in
culturally diverse nations is related to federalism. Some analysts regard federalism as an antidote
to over-centralization because it fosters democratic participation and prevents the over-
centralization of political power.

DELIBERATIVE DISCUSSION AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF FEDERALISM.


Deliberative discussion is a method for establishing the credibility of historical evidence and arguments
and a means to develop historical understanding in students. Deliberation involves teachers and
students in careful reading and extended discussion about principles of government such as federalism
and their connections to other key concepts in the theory and practice of constitutional democracy.

Teachers can engage students in deliberative discussions about issues of federalism in U.S.
history, which are organized around seminal documents such as selected "Federalist" papers,
selections from records of debates in Congress, or landmark opinions of Supreme Court Justices.
Starting with a seminal document, the teacher and students discuss the central ideas and issues in
the primary source. The teacher asks students to suspend judgments about past issues and points
of view while trying to understand the context of the document. The teacher then introduces
additional related documents so students have a richer contextual understanding of the period.
Students are invited to find other documents that more fully illuminate their inquiries into the
past. This kind of inquiry offers students opportunities to understand the on-going ideas and
issues that are associated with the principle of federalism.

USING INTERNET RESOURCES.


The following World Wide Web sites are recommended to teachers and students of federalism:

* American Federalism, 1776 to 1977: Significant events in American federalism, 1776 to 1997.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/crsrepor/federal.htm

* Assessing the New Federalism: Database includes statistics and tracking for all 50 states,
including fiscal, economic, and demographic data. Sponsored by the Urban Institute.
http://newfederalism.urban.org
* Canadian Politics on the Web/Federalism: The Canadian federal system has changed
dramatically since Confederation in 1867, and it continues to evolve in important ways. The site
includes material on the federal-provincial division of powers in Canada.
http://polisci.nelson.com/federalism.html

* Russian Model of Federalism: Problems and Prospects: Shows specific features and operations
of the Russian Federation. http://www.eurplace.org/federal/kossikov2.html

* U.S. Federalism Site: Offers definitions and different perspectives regarding federalism. Links
to related articles and essays. http://www.min.net/~kala/fed/

REFERENCES AND ERIC RESOURCES.


The following list of resources includes references used to prepare this Digest. The items followed by an
ED number are available in microfiche and/or paper copies from the ERIC Document Reproduction
Service (EDRS). For information about prices, contact EDRS, 7420 Fullerton Road, Suite 110, Springfield,
Virginia 22153-2852; telephone numbers are (703) 440-1400 and (800) 443-3742. Entries followed by an
EJ number, annotated monthly in CURRENT INDEX TO JOURNALS IN EDUCATION (CIJE), are not available
through EDRS. However, they can be located in the journal section of most larger libraries by using the
bibliographic information provided, requested through Interlibrary Loan, or ordered from commercial
reprint services.

Bahmueller, Charles F., Charles N. Quigley, and Others. CIVITAS: A FRAMEWORK FOR
CIVIC EDUCATION. Calabasas, California: Center for Civic Education, 1991. ED 340 654.

Cooke, Jacob E., ed. THE FEDERALIST. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1961.

Drake, Frederick D., and Lynn R. Nelson. STATES' RIGHTS AND AMERICAN
FEDERALISM: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Hickok, Eugene W. "Understanding Federalism." PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICAL SCIENCE


19 (Fall 1990): 216-222. EJ 423 808.

Nelson, Lynn R., and Frederick D. Drake. "Civic Intelligence and Liberal Intelligence in the
History Education of Social Studies Teachers and Students." In PRINCIPLES AND
PRACTICES OF DEMOCRACY IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS:
CIVIC LEARNING IN TEACHER EDUCATION, John J. Patrick and Robert S. Leming, eds.,
135-166. Bloomington, Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science
Education, 2001.

Patrick, John J. FOUNDING THE REPUBLIC: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY. Westport, CT:


Greenwood Press, 1995. ED 393 739.

Patrick, John J. JAMES MADISON AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS. Bloomington, Indiana:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education, 1990. ED 322 083.
Patrick, John J., Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Ritchie. THE OXFORD GUIDE TO THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Patrick, John J., and Clair W. Keller. LESSONS ON THE FEDERALIST PAPERS:
SUPPLEMENTS TO HIGH SCHOOL COURSES IN AMERICAN HISTORY,
GOVERNMENT, AND CIVICS. Bloomington, Indiana: Organization of American Historians in
Association with ERIC/ChESS, 1987. ED 280 764.

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/usa.htm
ERIC Identifier: ED390781
Publication Date: 1995-12-00
Author: Patrick, John J.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education Bloomington IN.

Civic Education for Constitutional Democracy: An


International Perspective. ERIC Digest.
The ideas of liberty, democracy, and constitutionalism have risen to global prominence in the
1990s, as major bastions of totalitarian communism have crumbled and collapsed. In various
parts of the world, from Central and South America to South Africa to Central and Eastern
Europe to Central Asia, newly empowered citizens have tried to build democratic foundations for
their nation-states. And in their daunting pursuit of the "blessings of liberty," they have
understood that new curricula for their schools are as important as new constitutions for their
governments. Among other educational goals, they have recognized that schools must teach
young citizens the theory and practices of constitutional democracy if they would develop and
sustain free societies and free governments.

Regardless of their differences in history, culture, and resources, all people interested in teaching
constitutional democracy authentically and effectively must address general educational
elements pertaining to civic knowledge, civic skills, and civic virtues. These general and basic
categories of civic education may be treated variously by educators of different countries. But
there are certain themes within each generic category that are international and transcultural.
They are the criteria by which we define civic education for constitutional democracy. So, these
defining characteristics or standards must NOT be avoided or violated by anyone who would
teach authentically the knowledge, skills, and virtues of civic life in a constitutional democracy
dedicated to liberty.

ESSENTIAL CIVIC KNOWLEDGE


The first objective of civic education is to teach thoroughly the meaning of the most basic idea, so that
students will know what a constitutional democracy is and what it is not. If students would be prepared
to act as citizens of a constitutional democracy, they must know how to distinguish this type of
government from other types. The label, constitutional democracy, has often been used by regimes with
showcase constitutions proclaiming popular governments and individual rights, which have meant little
or nothing to the regime's victims of tyranny. The so-called "people's democracies" of former
communist countries are tragic twentieth-century examples of the bogus use of a political label.

Through their civic education in schools, students should develop defensible criteria by which to
think critically and evaluate the extent to which their government and other governments of the
world do or do not function authentically as constitutional democracies. A few key concepts
necessary to a deep understanding of constitutional democracy must be taught and learned, such
as the rule of law, limited government, representative government, individual rights, popular
sovereignty, political participation, and civil society. Students must learn how these key concepts
of democratic political theory are institutionalized and practiced in their own country in
comparison to other nation-states of the world.

Finally, students must pursue inquiries about the transnational, generic, perennial problems of
any constitutional democracy: how to combine liberty with order, majority rule with minority
rights, and private rights with the public good. They must understand that a constitutional
democracy will fail (1) if the government has too much power or too little power and (2) if the
government overemphasizes majority rule at the expense of minority rights or vice-versa. How to
practically and effectively address these dilemmas is the ultimate challenge of citizenship in a
constitutional democracy and the determiner of the political system's destiny.

ESSENTIAL CIVIC SKILLS


Core knowledge must be applied effectively to civic life if it would serve the needs of citizens and their
"civitas." Thus, a central facet of civic education for constitutional democracy is development of
intellectual skills and participatory skills, which enable citizens to think and act in behalf of their
individual rights and their common good. Intellectual skills empower citizens to identify, describe, and
explain information and ideas pertinent to public issues and to make and defend decisions on these
issues. Participatory skills empower citizens to influence public policy decisions and to hold accountable
their representatives in government.

The development of civic skills requires intellectually active learning by students inside and
outside the classroom. Students are continually challenged to use information and ideas,
individually and collectively, to analyze case studies, respond to public issues, and resolve
political problems.

ESSENTIAL CIVIC VIRTUES


A third generic category of democratic civic education pertains to virtues. These are traits of character
necessary to preservation and improvement of a constitutional democracy. If citizens would enjoy the
privileges and rights of their polity, they must take responsibility for them, which requires a certain
measure of civic virtue.

Civic virtues, such as self-discipline, civility, compassion, tolerance, and respect for the worth
and dignity of all individuals are indispensable to the proper functioning of civil society and
constitutional government. These characteristics must be nurtured through various social
agencies, including the school, in a healthy constitutional democracy.

THE DEMOCRATIC TEACHER


Three generic components of democratic civic education, which transcend political boundaries and
cultures are (1) core concepts that denote essential knowledge, (2) intellectual and participatory skills
that enable practical application of civic knowledge, and (3) virtues that dispose citizens to act for the
good of their community. The effective democratic teacher develops lessons and learning activities for
students that emphasize and intertwine the three generic components of international civic education
in a classroom environment compatible with the theory and practices of constitutional democracy and
liberty.
The democratic teacher, for example, emphasizes interactive learning tasks in which students are
challenged to take responsibility for their achievement of educational objectives. The democratic
teacher encourages and protects free and open expression of ideas in an atmosphere of academic
freedom. Further, the democratic teacher establishes and applies rules fairly, according to
principles of equal protection and due process for each individual. There is recognition that true
liberty is inextricably connected with just rules, and that the equal right to freedom of individuals
depends upon an equitable rule of law for all members of the community. Finally, the democratic
teacher creates a classroom environment in which the worth and dignity of each person is
respected.

Democratic teachers take responsibility for developing challenging and interesting lessons for
students. Thus, they continue to educate themselves through a life-long program of reading,
thinking, reflecting, and planning to enhance their capacities for the education of citizens. And,
they continue to seek, obtain, and use resources for civic education, such as those listed in this
ERIC Digest.

REFERENCES AND ERIC RESOURCES


The following list of resources includes references used to prepare this Digest. The items followed by an
ED number are available in microfiche and/or paper copies from the ERIC Document Reproduction
Service (EDRS). For information about prices, contact EDRS, 7420 Fullerton Road, Suite 110, Springfield,
Virginia 22153-2852; telephone numbers are (703) 440-1400 and (800) 443-3742. Entries followed by an
EJ number, annotated monthly in CURRENT INDEX TO JOURNALS IN EDUCATION (CIJE), are not available
through EDRS. However, they can be located in the journal section of most larger libraries by using the
bibliographic information provided or requested through Interlibrary Loan.

Audigier, F., and G. Lagelee. CIVIC EDUCATION: TEACHING ABOUT SOCIETY,


PASSING ON VALUES. Report of the Council of Europe Teachers' Seminar at
Dinaueochingen, Germany (October 12-17, 1992).

Bahmueller, Charles F., general editor. CIVITAS: A FRAMEWORK FOR CIVIC


EDUCATION. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education, 1991. ED 340 654.

Bobbio, Norberto. LIBERALISM AND DEMOCRACY. London, England: Verso, 1990.

Broclawik, Krzysztof F., and others. SCHOOLS AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY:A COURSE
SYLLABUS FOR POLAND'S FUTURE TEACHERS. Columbus, OH: The Mershon Center,
1992. ED 361 263.

Brzakalik, Krystayna, and others. LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY: A PRIMARY


SCHOOL CIVICS COURSE FOR POLAND. Warsaw: Ministry of National Education, 1993.
ED 369 683.

Dostalova, Radmila. HUMANISTIC AND DEMOCRATIC GOALS IN THE CZECH


SECONDARY SCHOOLS: AIMS AND OUTLOOKS. Prague, Czech Republic: Comenius
Center for Education and Democracy, 1993. ED 372 021.
Education for Democracy Project. EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY: A STATEMENT OF
PRINCIPLES. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, 1987. ED 313 271.

Elster, Jon, and Rune Slagstad, eds. CONSTITUTIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY.


Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Hall, Kermit L. THE POWER OF COMPARISON IN TEACHING ABOUT


CONSTITUTIONALISM, LAW, AND DEMOCRACY. Paper presented to the Conference on
Education for Democracy at The Mershon Center of The Ohio State University, March 4-7,
1993. ED 372 025.

Maddox, Robert L. CONSTITUTIONS OF THE WORLD. Washington, DC: Congressional


Quarterly, Inc., 1995.

Melosik, Zbyszko, "Poland in the 1990's: The Role of Education in Creating a Participatory
Society." SOCIAL EDUCATION 55 (March 1991): 191-193. EJ 430 541.

Patrick, John J. FOUNDING THE REPUBLIC: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY. Westport, CT:


Greenwood Press, 1995.

Patrick, John J. CIVIC EDUCATION IN FORMER COMMUNIST COUNTRIES OF


CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE. Bloomington, IN: Social Studies Development Center
(Occasional Paper), 1994. ED 374 056.

Patrick, John J. CONSTITUTIONALISM IN EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY: THE


CONTINUING RELEVANCE OF ARGUMENTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDING ERA. Paper presented to the Conference on Education for
Democracy at The Mershon Center of The Ohio State University, March 4-7, 1993. ED 359 118.

Patrick, John J. "Teaching the Bill of Rights in Secondary Schools: Four Keys to an Improved
Civic Education." THE SOCIAL STUDIES 82 (November/December 1991): 227-231. EJ 447
868.

Quigley, Charles N., and others. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR CIVICS AND
GOVERNMENT. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education, 1994. ED 375 074.

Ravitch, Diane, and Abigail Thernstrom, eds. THE DEMOCRACY READER. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Ravitch, Diane. "A Report From Eastern Europe." THE SOCIAL STUDIES 82 (March/April
1991): 49-55. EJ 433 654.

Ravitch, Diane. DEMOCRACY: WHAT IT IS, HOW TO TEACH IT. Washington, DC:
Educational Excellence Network, 1990. ED 319 650.
Remy, Richard, and Jacek Strzemieczny, eds. CIVIC EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY IN
POLAND. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies in association with the
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education, forthcoming in 1996.

Remy, Richard C. TEACHING DEMOCRACY IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE: THE CASE


OF POLAND. ERIC Digest EDO-SO-94-4. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education, 1994. ED 377 120.

Remy, Richard C., and others. BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR CIVIC EDUCATION IN
POLAND'S SCHOOLS: FINAL REPORT. Columbus, OH: The Mershon Center, 1993. ED 370
833.

Valdmaa, Sulev. CIVIC EDUCATION CURRICULA FOR THE FORMS IX AND XII. Tallinn,
Estonia: Jaan Tonisson Institute, 1994. ED 374 054.

Varat, Jonathon D. REFLECTIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL


GOVERNMENT IN EASTERN EUROPE. Paper presented to the International Conference on
Western Democracy and Eastern Europe in Berlin, Germany, October 13-18, 1991. ED 345 994.

http://www.ericdigests.org/1996-3/civic.htm
ERIC Identifier: ED298076
Publication Date: 1988-10-00
Author: Patrick, John J.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education Bloomington IN.

Teaching the Bill of Rights. ERIC Digest.


The two-hundredth anniversary of the federal Bill of Rights in 1991 is the culmination of a
multi-year bicentennial celebration of the U.S. Constitution. It is also a special occasion for
renewal and improvement of education on core values and principles in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

The great importance of the Bill of Rights in the civic life of Americans justifies placing great
emphasis on this document in the curriculum of schools. And effective teaching and learning
about the Bill of Rights are required to prepare young Americans for citizenship in their
constitutional democracy. This ERIC Digest examines education about the Bill of Rights in
schools: (1) the status of it, (2) deficiencies in it, and (3) means to improve it.

WHAT IS TAUGHT ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN SCHOOLS?


Understanding of the Bill of Rights is an important part of education for responsible citizenship in the
United States, as indicated by curriculum guides and standard textbooks in American history,
government, and civics. Constitutional rights and liberties are emphasized in statements of goals for
education in the social studies published by local school districts, state-level departments of education,
and the National Assessment for Educational Progress (1988, 12-13).

Most Americans have studied the Bill of Rights at least four times in school--(1) in a fifth-grade
American studies course, (2) in a junior high/middle school American history course, (3) in a
high school American history course, and (4) in a high school American government or civics
course. In addition, a growing number of students learn about Bill of Rights concepts and issues
through special units or elective courses in law-related education. These formal courses of study
expose students to ideas in the Bill of Rights as well as the document's origin and development,
and it's relevance to citizenship and government in the United States.

Despite these ample opportunities for education on the Bill of Rights, many Americans have
failed to learn or retain important knowledge, values, and attitudes about constitutional rights and
liberties, as revealed by various studies of the past twenty-five years (Hearst Report 1987;
Quigley et al. 1987; Ravitch and Finn 1987; Elam 1984; NAEP 1983; McCloskey and Brill
1983; Remmers and Franklin 1963).

WHAT ARE MAJOR DEFICIENCIES IN LEARNING ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS?


DEFICIENCIES IN CIVIC LEARNING PERTAIN TO
-- ignorance of the content and meaning of the Bill of

Rights;
-- civic intolerance in application of constitutional

liberties and rights;

-- misunderstanding of the federal judiciary's role in

regard to Bill of Rights issues;

-- inability to rationally analyze and judge Bill of Rights

issues.

1. There is widespread ignorance about the content and meaning of the Bill of Rights. A recent
nation-wide survey of the Hearst Corporation found that a majority of American adults do not
know that the Bill of Rights is "the first 10 amendments to the original Constitution" (1987, 13).
By contrast, a 1987 study by the Center for Civic Education (CCE) showed that most high school
students did know that the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution and that
its purpose is "to list and guarantee individual rights" (Quigley et al. 1987, 3). However, the
students in its sample were misinformed about specific constitutional rights and ignorant of the
meaning, history, and application of key concepts, such as due process of law, freedom of
expression, and freedom of religion. Results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress
have also shown glaring gaps in secondary school students' knowledge of the Constitution in
general and civil rights and liberties in particular (NAEP 1983; Ravitch and Finn 1987).

2. Public attitudes about the Bill of Rights are generally positive, but support for certain liberties
and rights tends to markedly decline when they are applied to cases involving unpopular
minority groups or individuals. Numerous studies from the 1950s to the 1980s have confirmed
this finding (McCloskey and Brill 1983). The Purdue Youth Opinion Polls of the 1950s found a
large proportion of American high school students to be "authoritarian" in their attitudes toward
the Bill of Rights, because they tended to oppose application of certain civil rights and liberties
to blacks, communists, atheists, and other unpopular minority groups or individuals (Remmers
and Franklin 1963, 61-72). Adolescents of the 1980s were given the same statements about the
Bill of Rights used in the 1950s Purdue polls. An even greater proportion of these 1980s teen-
agers displayed authoritarian attitudes about certain constitutional rights than the 1950s students.
For example, a larger percentage of the 1980s students were willing to allow a police search
without a warrant, to deny legal counsel to criminals, and to accept restrictions on religious
freedom (Elam 1984).

3. High school students and adults tend to misunderstand the federal judiciary's role in dealing
with disputes about the meaning and application of constitutional rights. In the Center for Civic
Education study, most students had misconceptions about judicial review and were unaware of
the perennial conflict between judicial review and majority rule (Quigley et al. 1987, 5). These
conclusions were paralleled by the Hearst Report which also found that about half of the adult
respondents misconceived the role and powers of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system
of separated powers and checks and balances (1987, 23-26). Michael Kammen's history of the
Constitution in American culture documents the long-standing public ambivalence to and
misunderstanding of the Supreme Court's role in protecting individual rights against the potential
tyranny of majority rule (1986, 357-380).

4. Most high school seniors seem unprepared to define, analyze, and evaluate Bill of Rights
issues. Lack of knowledge is an obvious obstacle to defensible deliberation and discourse about
constitutional issues. If students cannot recognize and comprehend their rights in the U.S.
Constitution, then they certainly will not be able to cogently reflect upon them. Research of the
past twenty-five years indicates that most adolescents are incapable of high-level cognitive
ability when thinking about legal or moral issues of the kind raised by controversies over
constitutional rights. In their report on the 1986 NAEP study of students' knowledge of history,
Ravitch and Finn conclude: "...many of the most profound issues of contemporary society...have
their origins and their defining events in the evolving drama of the Constitution. Yet our
youngsters do not know enough about that drama, either in general or in specific terms, to reflect
on or think critically about its meaning" (1987, 58).

HOW CAN EDUCATION ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS BE IMPROVED? Research about


teaching strategies and civic learning suggests that understanding of Bill of Rights concepts and
issues and positive attitudes about the paradoxical ideals of a constitutional democracy (such as a
majority rule with minority rights), can be achieved by most secondary school students. Tested
teaching strategies involve:

-- systematic teaching of Bill of Rights concepts;

-- case studies on Bill of Rights issues;

-- examination and discussion of issues in an open

classroom climate.

1. Teach core concepts systematically through a rule-example-application strategy. This manner


of teaching and learning constitutional concepts is exemplified in LESSONS ON THE
CONSTITUTION (Patrick and Remy 1985, 118-126). It involves clear presentations of criteria
that define a concept (rules), numerous examples of the criteria, and activities that challenge
students to apply the defining criteria to organization and interpretation of new data and
examples.

2. Teach Bill of Rights issues, and skills in analyzing and making judgments about them, through
case studies that vividly portray individuals in conflict over these issues. This strategy has been
used successfully in various curriculum development projects from the 1960s through the 1980s
(Oliver and Shaver 1966; Patrick and Remy 1985). In particular, projects in law-related
education have emphasized lessons based on case studies and have documented the instructional
effectiveness of this strategy (Study Group on Law-Related Education 1978). Research has
determined, for example, that case study lessons on constitutional rights issues have positively
affected development of students' attitudes toward minority rights (Patrick 1977).
3. Establish and maintain an open and supportive classroom environment in which to examine
and discuss Bill of Rights issues. If students feel free and secure about expressing ideas on
controversial topics, even if their ideas are unusual or unpopular, they are more likely to develop
positive attitudes about Bill of Rights ideals and to learn high-level cognitive skills necessary to
responsible citizenship in a constitutional democracy (Leming 1985, 162-163).

REFERENCES AND ERIC RESOURCES

The following list of resources includes references used to prepare this Digest. The items
followed by an ED number are in the ERIC system and are available in microfiche and paper
copies from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For information about prices,
contact EDRS, 3900 Wheeler Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304; telephone numbers are 703-
823-0500 and 800-227-3742. Entries followed by an EJ number are annotated monthly in CIJE
(CURRENT INDEX TO JOURNALS IN EDUCATION) which is available in most libraries. EJ
documents are not available through EDRS; however, they can be located in the journal section
of most libraries by using the bibliographic information provided below.

Elam, Stanley M. "Anti-Democratic Attitudes of High School Students in the Orwell Year." PHI
DELTA KAPPAN 65 (January 1984): 327-332. EJ 291 508.

Hearst Report. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.


New York: The Hearst Corporation, 1987. ED 289 812.

Justice, William Wayne. "Teaching the Bill of Rights." PHI DELTA KAPPAN 68 (October
1986): 154-157. EJ 341 182.

Kammen, Michael. A MACHINE THAT WOULD GO OF ITSELF: THE CONSTITUTION IN


AMERICAN CULTURE. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.

Leming, James S. "Research on Social Studies Curriculum and Instruction: Interventions and
Outcomes in the Socio-Moral Domain," in REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN SOCIAL STUDIES
EDUCATION: 1976-1983, edited by William B. Stanley. Washington, DC: National Council for
the Social Studies, 1985. ED 255 469.

McCloskey, Herbert and Alida Brill. DIMENSIONS OF TOLERANCE: WHAT AMERICANS


BELIEVE ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1983.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. CIVICS: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT &


POLITICS OBJECTIVES, 1988 ASSESSMENT. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service,
1987. ED 287 875.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. CITIZENSHIP AND SOCIAL STUDIES


ACHIEVEMENT OF YOUNG AMERICANS: 1981-82 PERFORMANCE AND CHANGES
BETWEEN 1976 AND 1982. Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1983. ED 236 247.
Oliver, Donald W. and James A. Shaver. TEACHING PUBLIC ISSUES IN THE HIGH
SCHOOL. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.

Patrick, John J. and Richard C. Remy. LESSONS ON THE CONSTITUTION. Washington, DC:
Project '87 of the American Historical Association and American Political Science Association,
1985. ED 258 891.

Patrick, John J. "Political Socialization and Political Education in Schools," in HANDBOOK OF


POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION: THEORY AND RESEARCH, edited by Stanley Allen
Renshon. New York: The Free Press, 1977.

Quigley, Charles N. et al. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS'


KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY AND PRINCIPLES OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS. Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic
Education, 1987.

Ravitch, Diane and Chester E. Finn, Jr. WHAT DO OUR 17-YEAR-0LDS KNOW? A REPORT
ON THE FIRST NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF HISTORY AND LITERATURE. New York:
Harper & Row, 1987.

Remmers, H. H. and Richard D. Franklin. "Sweet Land of Liberty," in ANTI-DEMOCRATIC


ATTITUDES IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS, edited byH. H. Remmers. Evanston: IL:
Northwestern University Press, 1963.

Study Group on Law-Related Education. FINAL REPORT OF THE U.S. OFFICE OF


EDUCATION STUDY GROUP ON LAW-RELATED EDUCATION. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1978. ED 175 737.

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-929/rights.htm
ERIC Identifier: ED348320
Publication Date: 1992-08-00
Author: Gottlieb, Stephen S.
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education Bloomington IN.

Teaching about the Constitutional Rights of Students. ERIC


Digest.
If people are to exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities as citizens, they must
understand those rights and responsibilities. Social studies teachers have a special role to play in
shaping the lives of young United States citizens. Those educators can help determine whether
students will know their civic rights and responsibilities and become politically involved adults.

U.S. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND CITIZENS' RIGHTS


An appreciation of the rights and responsibilities of American citizens requires a basic understanding of
the structure of the United States government. Teachers can use lectures, readings, role-playing
activities, and a host of other techniques to help students understand the organization of the federal
government and its relationship to the individual states. The most natural starting point for such study is
the Constitution.

Students will be interested to learn that the Bill of Rights, which many consider to be a model
civil liberties document, was the result of a compromise. It was offered to allay fears about the
strong central government established under the basic Constitution. Some state ratifying
conventions would not have approved the Constitution had they not been promised the Bill of
Rights as well.

CRIMINAL LAW AND JUVENILE JUSTICE


The Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from breaking into people's homes
without a warrant, seeking out and seizing evidence of crimes, and using that evidence against the
residents in criminal trials. However, it was not until 1961 that the U.S. Supreme Court established the
"exclusionary rule" clearly, which prevents officials from using evidence gained illegally in the
prosecution of a person accused of a crime. Students will enjoy debating whether that landmark ruling
in the case of Mapp v. Ohio was the right decision for the Court, and what problems it could pose for law
enforcement. For example, critics have argued that the "exclusionary rule" may result in acquittal of
persons who might otherwise have been proven guilty. Supporters, however, have hailed it as a great
defense of individual liberties.

Critics of the criminal justice system often ask why the state should have to supply defense
attorneys for criminal suspects. To a person who has not made a serious study of the
Constitution, it might seem odd that the government sometimes assists people who may have
broken the government's own laws. The 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright stands for the
proposition that a person cannot be denied equal access to justice simply because he lacks the
resources to pay for his defense. The questions of whether poverty justifies free legal
representation and whether a poor person gets the same quality legal help as a rich person does
provide excellent grounds for class discussion.

Anyone who has watched a television police drama in the last few decades is familiar with the
litany known as the "Miranda warning." Most people probably do not know who Miranda was or
realize the full significance of the individual instructions. What does the Fifth Amendment's ban
on compelling a person to be a witness against himself have to do with the Miranda case? An
informed citizen should know. Was the Miranda decision a necessary defense of individual
rights? Or has it unfairly restricted police officers in their apprehension of criminals? Students
should be challenged to debate this constitutional issue.

In some countries, citizens must carry identity cards and show them to public authorities on
demand. In most circumstances in the United States, people going about their business do not
have to stop and explain themselves to every passing police officer. People need to be aware,
however, that there are exceptions to this general rule. Administrative checks of automobiles and
roadblocks to seek out drunk drivers on public highways have been upheld by the courts. Even
on the sidewalk, police can stop people who are acting suspiciously, and frisk them when the
situation warrants. Where should the United States draw the line between the "let me see your
papers" mentality of authoritarian regimes and the legitimate interest of governments in
protecting the public from dangerous individuals? This critical question should be used to focus
classroom discussions.

The Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment and prohibits
excessive bails and fines. When is a punishment "cruel and unusual"? When is a fine
"excessive"? Much has been written about the relationship between the Eighth Amendment and
capital punishment. Given a hypothetical situation about a death penalty case, a classroom may
produce as many different opinions about the case as there are students in the class.

The law treats children accused of breaking the law somewhat differently from adult suspects.
Prosecutors generally must follow a different set of procedures when putting juveniles on trial.
However, when facing the possibility of commitment to an institution, a juvenile offender must
still be advised of the charges and of the right to counsel, the privilege against self-incrimination,
and the right to confront prosecuting witnesses. As in the case of an adult charged with a crime,
the guilt of a juvenile accused of committing an act of delinquency must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Role-playing activities provide excellent means for learning about the United States justice
system. Students will enjoy the drama of taking the part of a judge, lawyer, witness, or litigant.
Criminal cases and situations pitting a person's individual rights against the authority of the
government are particularly excellent situations for capturing and holding the attention of
students.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT SCHOOL


Students do not set aside their constitutional rights when they walk into school. However, those rights
are balanced against school administrators' disciplinary authority and the civic responsibilities of
students. Children facing suspension from school must be given hearings, but those hearings need not
amount to formal trials. A student can wear an armband to school as an expression of his political views,
but may be disciplined for a sexually suggestive speech delivered at a school-sponsored assembly. A
student contributor to the school newspaper enjoys First Amendment rights, but the school that
sponsors the paper can remove material that it views as inconsistent with the school's educational
mission. School boards may order the removal of books from school libraries, but are prevented from
taking the action if it is for partisan political reasons.

The rules regarding search and seizure also apply differently to schoolchildren. School officials
are free to search a student if there is evidence that the student committed a crime or violated a
school rule, and if the search is reasonable at the outset and reasonably limited in scope.

One of the most significant United States Supreme Court decisions in history dealt with the issue
of race in public education. Prior to the 1950s, African Americans were still barred from
attending many public schools solely on racial grounds. Long-standing court decisions held that
"separate but equal" educational facilities for blacks were acceptable. In 1954, in the landmark
decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the United States Supreme Court finally
held that the "separate but equal" policy was inherently unequal. In a follow-up ruling the next
year, the justices ordered that schools were to be desegregated "with all deliberate speed."
Notwithstanding the ruling, school desegregation suits continue to crop up from time to time.

The cases and situations discussed comprise just a small part of the United States' rich legal
history. Knowledge of that history is of the utmost importance to those who are about to become
adult participants in American society.

REFERENCES AND ERIC RESOURCES


The following list of resources includes references used to prepare this Digest. The items followed by an
ED number are in the ERIC system. They are available in microfiche and/or paper copies from the ERIC
Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). For information about prices, contact EDRS, 7420 Fullerton
Road, Suite 110, Springfield, Virginia 22153-2852; telephone numbers are (703) 440-1400 and (800) 443-
3742. Entries followed by an EJ number are annotated monthly in CURRENT INDEX TO JOURNALS IN
EDUCATION (CIJE), which is available in most large public or university libraries. EJ documents are not
available through EDRS. However, they can be located in the journal section of most libraries by using
the bibliographic information provided below or ordered through Interlibrary Loan.

Buechler, Mark, et al. THE DEBATE OVER CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: POLICY DEBATE
MEMO NO. 5. Bloomington, IN: Consortium on Educational Policy Studies, 1989. ED 311 595.

Carey, John J. LAW-RELATED EDUCATION CURRICULUM. New Mexico: Crownpoint


Institute of Technology, 1987. ED 289 665.

Chibucos, Pamela E. PERSPECTIVES: READINGS ON CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN


GOVERNMENT (TEACHER'S GUIDE). Arlington, VA: Close Up Foundation, 1987. ED 308
119.
Conner, Eugene T. "Accommodating Religious Needs: Policies and Procedures." RELIGION &
PUBLIC EDUCATION 16 (Spring-Summer 1989): 245-257. EJ 417 355.

Croddy, Marshall. "Bringing the Bill of Rights to the Classroom: An Anecdotal History of the
Constitutional Rights Foundation." SOCIAL STUDIES 82 (November-December 1991): 218-22.
EJ 447 866.

Gottlieb, Stephen S. A HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS. Bloomington, IN:


ERIC Clearinghouse for Reading and Communication Skills and ERIC Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education, 1991. ED 340 654.

Jackson, Edwin L. IMPROVING CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION: SECONDARY HANDBOOK.


Atlanta, GA: Fulton County Schools, 1981. ED 229 322.

Janes, Larry. "An Examination of the Legal Context for Teaching Ethics." NASSP BULLETIN
74 (October 1990): 25-30. EJ 416 406.

McCarthy, Martha M, and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. "School Desegregation." PUBLIC


SCHOOL LAW: TEACHERS' AND STUDENTS' RIGHTS (2nd Edition). Newton, MA: Allyn
and Bacon, Longwood Division, 1987. ED 283 243.

Patrick, John J., and Richard C. Remy. LESSONS ON THE CONSTITUTION:


SUPPLEMENTS TO HIGH SCHOOL COURSES IN AMERICAN HISTORY,
GOVERNMENT AND CIVICS. Washington, DC: Project '87 of the American Historical
Association and the American Political Science Association, 1985. ED 258 891.

Patrick, John J. HOW TO TEACH THE BILL OF RIGHTS. New York: Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith, 1991. ED 332 928.

Rossow, Lawrence. SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Topeka, KS:
National Organization on Legal Problems in Education, 1987. ED 281 305.

Shoop, Robert J. "States Talk Back to the Supreme Court: 'Students Should be Heard as Well as
Seen.'" WEST'S EDUCATION LAW REPORTER 59 (June 7, 1990): 579-586. EJ 411 632.

Terry, John David, II. "Censorship Post-Pico," in Jones, Thomas N., and Darel P. Semler, eds.,
SCHOOL LAW UPDATE, 1986. Topeka, KS: National Organization on Legal Problems. ED
272 994.

Townsend, Kenneth, and Patrick Webb. YOUTH AND THE LAW, #4012. NINTH GRADE
ELECTIVE SEMESTER. Charlotte, NC: Charlotte-Mecklenberg Public Schools, 1983. ED 302
448.

http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-2/rights.htm
Title Textbook on the Philippine Constitution

Author Hector S. De Leon

Publisher Rex Book Store, 2002

ISBN 9712334481, 9789712334481

Length 516 pages

http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/SHS%20Core_Understanding%20Culture%2C%20Society%
20and%20Politics%20CG.pdf
Socioeconomic classes (SEC) ABCDE explained

Market researchers and brand marketers usually use five socioeconomic classes Class A, B,
C, D, E when describing income segments of a population. In the case of the Philippines, its
tough to describe who really comprise these segments and how much percentage they are
compared to the total population due to lack of credible and substantive researches.

Class A vs. Class B: Whats the distinction?

Identifying the extreme segments of the population is actually easier to do than defining the rest
of the segments. For example, we can surmise that residents of high-end, ultra-exclusive
subdivisions such as Forbes Park, Dasmarinas Village, Ayala Alabang, and the like may be
classified as Class A.

But what about multi-millionaires in the provinces with sprawling hectares of land and with large
mansions? They appear to be uber-rich but do they fall under Class A?

Can we also say that those living in expensive and posh subdivisions such as Valle Verde, La
Vista, and Ayala Hillside Estates are in Class A? The market prices of land in those subdivisions
may range from P30,000 to P80,000 per square meter, so if you are to buy a 1,000-square meter
house and lot inside these villages, you will have to shell out between P30 million and P80
million on average.

If you can afford that, does that mean you are part of Class A? Or is that Class B? How do we
make a distinction between Class A and Class B?

Class E vs. Classes C and D

The other extreme segment of the population, Class E, is also easier to distinguish. Typically
Class E people are those with no homes that they can call their own. They may reside in squatter
areas (or, to use the more politically correct term, informal settlements). They barely possess
any property or asset and they usually live on a hand-to-mouth basis, meaning, they are not
assured if they will have something to eat by the next meal time.

Meanwhile, the two other remaining income classes, C and D, are vaguely known. One of them
may be called the middle class and another, the masa segment but which one exactly? Its
even possible that the middle class and the masa segment may be just one and the same.

Sponsored Links

If we look at the income pyramid identified in our previous article Social class structure: Income
distribution between rich vs. poor, we can see that the income structure in the Philippines is Type
2, or a society with a small elite at the top, more people in the middle, and most at the bottom.

If majority of the population are said to be at the bottom, that is, below the poverty line, which
class then does the average Filipino belong? Class C or D?
Rich vs. Poor vs. Middle class

We tried to do extensive research in order to answer the questions we posted above. We were
able to find relevant reports below that can help define the income classes.

The latest Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of the National Statistical
Coordination Board (NSCB) offers some, albeit not that exhaustive, information about income
classes in the country. However, instead of dividing the Philippine population into Classes A, B,
C, D or E, the NSCB simply grouped the country into three segments: the high income, middle
income, and low income groups.

High income segments are families or people earning an average of P200,000 a month or P2.4
million a year. Thus, they may be described as the rich segment. They are very few, numbering
only 0.1% of total families in the Philippines.

The middle income class is said to earn an average of P36,934 per month while the low income
segment earns an average of P9,061 per month.

It is good to know that the FIES report has those details, unfortunately, it is still not detailed
enough. For example, if a familys monthly income is around P80,000 can this be considered
high income or middle income? What if the monthly income of a household is P20,000 is this
middle or low income?

Simply speaking, we want to know: When can we say if a family or a person belongs to the high
income, middle income, or low income class? The FIES report does not provide a concrete
answer.

Population Percentage: Classes A, B, C, D, E

Another research we found that attempted to determine the number of Classes ABCDE in the
Philippines is the 2011 report published by polling firm Social Weather Stations (SWS)
entitled Family Income Distribution in the Philippines from 1985 to 2009.

This report offered insights regarding income classes but was also silent on the actual description
of each class. Still the report is useful for those interested in knowing how many in the Philippine
population belongs to Classes A, B, C, D or E.

Data from the report are summarized in this table.

Percentage Distribution of Socioeconomic Classes

% Share in Number of
Class % Share in Total Income Average Annual Income
Families

AB 1% 9% PHP1,857,000
% Share in Number of
Class % Share in Total Income Average Annual Income
Families

C 9% 26% PHP603,000

D 60% 56% PHP191,000

E 30% 9% PHP62,000

Total 100% 100% PHP206,000

This SWS survey shows that the high income AB classes represent only 1% of the families in the
Philippine population. As expected, they are very, very few. If we are to translate this percentage
into nominal terms, the AB classes number only 185,000 families.

If we assume that each family is comprised of five (5) people, the AB population of the
Philippines is barely 1 million people. The report warns, though, that this number may appear
lower because most AB respondents refuse to participate in the survey.

Meanwhile Class C comprises 9%, with class D representing the largest bulk of families in the
Philippines: 60%. Therefore, six (6) out of every 10 Filipinos belong to Class D. Judging by this
huge percentage, we can say that the masa population in the country is Class D.

The poorest segment, Class E, also comprises a big chunk. Around 30% of Filipino families are
classified under this class, which undoubtedly confirms that poverty in the Philippines remains
prevalent.

If we looked at income distribution, the results are also alarming. Despite comprising only 1% of
the Philippine population, income classes A and B own 9% of total incomes in the country.
Worse, their income is almost equivalent to the total income earned by 30% of the families in the
Philippines. Very obvious income disparity, indeed.

The reports we cited above may not be detailed and definitive enough for us to fully understand
income segments in the country but they provide a good foundation. We hope that in the future,
more researches will emerge that will give us a clear and complete picture of the income classes
in the Philippines.

More importantly, we hope that these future reports will offer solutions on how to reduce income
disparity in the Philippines and how to help more Filipinos to move up the income pyramid.
MANILA, Philippines Amid the chatter surrounding charter change, many Filipinos have little
or no knowledge about the country's most important set of laws, the results of an independent
survey revealed Thursday, October 2.

Seventy percent (70%) of Filipinos have "little or no knowledge" about the Constitution of the
Philippines, despite a majority saying they are opposed to changing the country's basic laws at
this time, according to the results of Pulse Asia's latest "Ulat ng Bayan" survey.

Of those surveyed, Pulse Asia said 24% have "almost none or no knowledge at all" about the
Constitution, while 46% admit to know a little about it. Meanwhile, 30% said they have a "great
deal" or "sufficient" knowledge of the country's fundamental laws.

Despite this, 61% of survey respondents say they are aware of the proposals to amend the 1987
Constitution, saying they have read, heard, or watched something about the issue.

Awareness of the issue is highest in Metro Manila and Luzon (70% and 67%, respectively), and
among classes ABC (77%), while 39% of the survey respondents said they only knew about the
issue when they were asked about it during the survey interview.

Among those who said they are aware of the charter change proposals, 42% say they have
sufficient or a great deal of knowledge of the charter itself; 58% said they have "little or no
knowledge."

Opposition to cha-cha rises

The survey showed a majority of respondents (62%) think that the Constitution should not be
amended at this time, compared to 20% who agree, and 18% who say they don't know or cannot
state their opinion as of yet.

The sentiment is shared across the geographic areas (Metro Manila, Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao),
and classes (ABC, D, and E), Pulse Asia said.

Among those aware of charter change proposals, the number becomes higher, at 70%; only 22%
of those aware of the issue say the Constitution should be amended now.

Compared to a previous survey on charter change views back in October 2010, those saying the
constitution should be amended at the present dropped by 20 percentage points, from 40% in
2010 to 20% now.

Those saying the charter stay as is rose by 6 percentage points, from 56% in 2010, to 62% now.

Majority of respondents also said they are not in favor of two proposed changes the limiting of
Supreme Court powers and foreign ownership of land.
Pulse Asia said 70% of the respondents are not in favor of the proposal to limit the High Court's
powers in relation to reviewing executive decisions, while a higher percentage 85% say they
do not agree to amending the Constitution to allow foreign individuals or companies to own land.

The Ulat ng Bayan survey, Pulse Asia said, was conducted from September 8-15, via face-to-
face interviews, based on a sample of 1,200 representative adults 18 years old and above.

During the time of the survey, some of the major news stories in the country were the Makati
parking building controversy; the junking of the impeachment complaint against President
Benigno Aquino III; the foiled "bombing attempt" at the NAIA terminal 3; and the confirmation
of Gen Gregorio Pio Catapang as AFP chief of staff.

Pulse Asia said the survey has an error margin of +/-3%, at 95% confidence level, while the error
margin for the geographic areas stand at +/-6%, at 95% confidence level.

"No religious, political, economic, or partisan group influenced any of these processes," the
survey firm said. Rappler.com

KD Suarez
Published 10:51 AM, Oct 02, 2014

Updated 10:51 AM, Oct 02, 2014

More Filipinos against cha-cha, know little about Constitution


The latest Pulse Asia survey results also reveal opposition to charter change has risen, compared
to results of a similar survey in 2010

Você também pode gostar