To political scientists, civic education, frequently synonymous with citizenship education in the past, has not meant teaching about the institutions and processes of American Government and a commitment to their preservation. The undergraduate and pre-college educational mission of political scientists, beginning in the earliest decades of the last century, was to prepare students to be intelligent, informed, and effective citizens who would value and preserve democracy. When these political scientists used terms such as "positive attitudes toward American values" to discuss citizenship, "American values" referred not to the institutional and cultural status quo, but to an obligation to build a more open and participatory democracy. Major recommendations and statements from the earliest reports of APSA education committees support this assertion.

The Committee of Seven on Instruction did an extensive survey of pre-college civic education practices and recommended better training for teachers, improved instructional materials, and a course with more emphasis on local affairs and practical politics. (APSR 1914).

A subsequent Committee on Instruction stated, "The aim of the [political science] course should not be to impart information, but rather to give the pupil an intelligent conception of the great society in which he is a member, his relation to it what it requires of him, how it is organized and what functions it performs. The immediate problem is to impress upon the pupil the fact that he is a member of the community and ought to be an active constructive member of it." (This quotation reflects the bias of assuming a male student audience. APSR 1921). 

Even in these early decades of the twentieth century, political scientists argued that learning about politics involves much more than lectures and discussions. They thus proposed giving undergraduate as well as graduate students internships and experiential education in politics and government, particularly in Congress and state legislatures. 

It is true that reports and education projects in the first half of the century - which included a broadcast radio series with a considerable audience called, "You and Your Government"(1932-36) - did express satisfaction with American society. Political science was most supportive of American institutions during World War II and in the immediate postwar period when there were projects to teach civil liberties and the value of American democracy. Nonetheless, the major statement about political science education in that era, Goals for Political Science (1951), acknowledged "the difficulty of deciding what citizenship means and how to go about producing it" and recommended that "Citizenship should be taught through analysis and through helping students to think critically, not through indoctrination or preaching. The principal factors which may be relied upon in improving our effectiveness as teachers of citizenship are motivation, preparation, application, participation and balance."

These reservations about assuming a consensus on civic education were amplified by the observation twenty years later in the report on "Political Education in The Public Schools: The Challenge of Political Science"(PS 1971): "While schools should not be a birthplace of cynicism or despair about the political life of the society, neither should they communicate to students highly unrealistic and romanticized images of human politics. The existence of conflict, the importance of self interest, the failures of public policies and political institutions to achieve given objectives and inequalities in the distribution of political power are realities which most students readily learn from one source or another."

This report called upon political scientists to collaborate in education programs that give students: "A capacity to think about political phenomena in conceptually sophisticated ways. . . an understanding of and skill in the process of social scientific inquiry. . . . An understanding of the capacities and skills needed to participate effectively and democratically in society." By implication, the Committee's assessment and recommendations applied to undergraduate education as well and were reaffirmed for many years by subsequent APSA education committees, and exemplified by the chapter on the place of political science in the social studies curriculum contributed by Richard E. Brody, then Education Committee Chair, to the report, Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21^st Century (1989). However, in that report Brody, who again stressed that there are many modes of inquiry about politics and that all citizens have a stake in understanding politics, pointed out that most Americans consider politics "remote, troublesome, confusing and uninteresting."

Less than a decade later, the APSA's Task Force on Civic Education placed greater emphasis on evidence of, "mounting political apathy in the United States" indicated by "current levels of political knowledge, political engagement, and political enthusiasm so low as to threaten the vitality and stability of democratic politics in the United States." The Task Force encouraged political science faculty to "Teach the motivation and competence to engage actively in public problem-solving" and cautioned against approaches to teaching critically that "may feed not healthy skepticism but unhealthy cynicism and political disengagement."

These reports refute those who characterize civic education as insensitive to conflict, analysis, and criticism of government and political practices. They confirm that political science discourse about civic education has a long history of rejecting idealistic interpretations of American politics. In the past decade, political science work on civic education has focused on how to address (the discipline's own) research findings as to the growing political disengagement in the United States, most particularly among younger Americans. 

Legislative scholars were the most active leaders of the university and college-based Congressional and state legislative internship programs whose earliest objective was to enhance political and civic education. The connection between education and the study of national and state legislatures is fitting since legislative internships were the first, and remain the most extensive, form of education in practical politics so central to the recommendations summarized above. Three national projects launched after World War II were especially noteworthy. First, the Citizenship Clearing House-National Center for Education in Politics (CCH-NCEP), 1946-61,which gave undergraduate and graduate political science students experience in practical politics was led largely by legislative scholars. Second, the APSA's Congressional Fellowship Program (CFP), established in 1953 and thriving today, a professional internship program for political scientists (along with journalists, medical and health professionals and domestic and foreign affairs agency officials) to spend an academic year working in the U.S. Congress. Alumni of the CFP are prominent among the legislative specialists whose scholarship and professional service contribute to civic education. Third, legislative specialists were directors and faculty in the Taft Seminars, the exemplary in-service education program for high school civics and government teachers. The first Taft Seminar was conducted in 1963 at the University of Rochester. By 1986, there were 35 seminars each summer and 554 Taft Seminars had been conducted by 114 colleges and universities in 45 states, collectively enrolling 17,000 teachers from all over the country. 

Spurred on in large part by research on public disaffection with government and politics, particularly with legislatures, legislative scholars are currently involved in civic education initiatives. In particular, Alan Rosenthal's research for The Decline of Representative Democracy (1998) stimulated his belief that education should address public misunderstandings and cynicism about legislators. With the participation of the NCSL and APSA's Task Force on Civic Education, he recruited John Hibbing and Burdett Loomis to join him and Karl Kurtz in writing the project's guide, A New Public Perspective on Representative Democracy: A Guide for Legislative Interns (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, January 2000). Many more faculty who do legislative work are field testing this guide for legislative interns. Research by John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse on public distrust of Congress led to their recommendations about what should be taught in order to connect students to democratic politics (PS: Political Science & Politics 1996). 

In the past decade, the Dirksen Congressional Center has developed exemplary civic education projects on representative democracy and Congress. The Center's projects support research and teaching and connect scholarship and education as well as scholars and teachers. The projects include: Congressional Research Awards for faculty; a summer institute for teachers entitled Congress in the Classroom; the publication Congress and the Decline of Public Trust (1999); a web site for resources (http:www.pekin.net/dirksen); and the new Michel Grants to support the development of lesson plans, instructional strategies, and resources to improve civic education by fourth through twelfth grade teachers. Indiana University's newly established Center on Congress, under the leadership of former Congressman Lee Hamilton, has civic education as a major mission and seeks the advice of legislative scholars and educators. In addition, legislative specialists remain actively involved in developing and directing continuing education programs for civics and government teachers in their states, often through their universities' respective institutes of government.

Recent research on public perceptions of Congress, legislators and legislative processes is contributing to a better understanding about popular perceptions of politics and support for political processes and officials. Many legislative specialists might be pleasantly surprised to learn that there is a wider audience of educators and non-governmental organization and foundation officials for their scholarship. The education projects that many other legislative specialists engage in, on their campuses and in state and national networks, directly connect their expertise on legislatures and representative democracy to contemporary civic education concerns. A listing of the university-based institutes with civic education projects and networks can be accessed on the APSA's web site: www.apsanet.org/CENnet/organizations/index.cfm

There is considerable agreement among political scientists and higher education and pre-college education leaders that civic education must counter widely held and oversimplified cynical views of government, politics, and politicians. Indeed, the goal to teach a more realistic view of politics now involves arguing against overdrawn negative portrayals of the conduct of public officials and the impact of public policies in contrast with the idealistic views that political scientists criticized earlier. Moreover, the interest in identifying and assessing "interventions" that contribute to civic education and encourage political interest and participation, especially by students and other young Americans, is one that many political scientists, and notably legislative specialists, share with other higher education leaders. 

The interventions of interest to legislative specialists put students directly into contact with elected officials and do so with careful planning about what students will be expected to do and learn, as exemplified by the guide for legislative interns cited above. The National Conference of State Legislatures' "America's Legislators Back to School Day" is a promising initiative. The Center for Civic Education's "Project Citizen" that involves middle school students in analyzing public policy issues and presenting their recommendations to local officials is having an impact. In an essay prepared for an edited collection on "Service Learning and Other Practices for Democratic Engagement," to be published by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Social Studies/Social Sciences Education, Susan MacManus identifies useful strategies for teachers, education administrators, and public officials that connect students to public institutions and encourage the students' involvement in public affairs and consideration of careers in politics and government.

Most legislative specialists are university and college faculty who teach undergraduate as well as graduate students. In their introductory and advanced courses, faculty have opportunities to: challenge students' inaccurate stereotypes of politicians and political processes; guide students' selections of sources of political information; develop students' communication and participation skills; advise on the broad range of opportunities for careers in government and politics. Faculty are likely to be teaching these topics but may not be acknowledging their contribution to civic education. 

University presidents and foundations are responding to national and state objectives to improve the subject matter knowledge of future and current teachers. Its likely that there will be resources to support faculty work that contributes to teacher education.

Legislative specialists who are interested in keeping informed about civic education research, objectives, and programs are invited to consider being part of the network of individuals and organizations in the National Alliance for Civic Education (NACE). The Alliance was launched in May 2000 to promote research and work on civic education. William A. Galston, University of Maryland is coordinating NACE's founding and agenda setting activities. The "Declaration" of NACE goals and list of organizations and individuals endorsing NACE in May is also on the APSA's web site: www.apsanet.org/teach/nace.cfm

Consequently, there is an array of both established and newly launched programs to connect the work of legislative specialists to civic education, properly understood and currently pursued.