Here are thoughts on a new citizenship test, from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer:
What does every new American need to know? A government agency is trying to decide. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services held a conference in Washington last week to discuss changing the test that prospective citizens must pass to become naturalized Americans. They hope to have a new version by next year.
Oh boy, now the standardized testing debate gets combined with the immigration/assimilation debate. That's going to get interesting.
The current test, which dates from the 1980s, aims at demonstrating a basic understanding of English and of "the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States." It's not a standardized test but usually consists of about 10 civics questions picked from a study guide of 100. Some of the questions include listing the colors of the flag, identifying the original 13 states and naming the writer of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Critics say the test focuses on unrelated random facts instead of principles and the meaning of citizenship. They say that it is more important to know the significance of the words "give me liberty or give me death" than to name the person who said it.
Sounds good, but who gets to decide what the true "significance" of those words is? What interpretation do we use? What IS the meaning of citizenship? The reason that "unrelated random facts" get used on these types of test is because those facts are easily learned and fairly objective. I agree that testing the understanding of our nation's history is important, but it's also a much trickier thing to measure than whether or not someone knows when the Civil War began.
President Bush, who announced plans to revamp the test earlier this month, said the United States should set "high expectations for what new citizens should know. Every citizen of America has an obligation to learn the values that make us one nation."
No one can argue with that, although we might hope the new test does not include correctly identifying President Bush as the person who has said "there ought to be limits to freedom," or, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." Presumably, he will not be writing the new test.
See what I mean? Already, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has injected political ideology into the discussion, and although the President himself will not author the test, the fact that it's being revamped underneath his command means that it might be more likely to reflect a Republican bent than a Democratic one. And there's no way on earth that the Bush-haters will agree with anything that the Republicans say correctly reflects "the values that make us one nation." Whose values? Who decides? And what about all those textbooks that are constantly re-interpreting history and reviling the "dead white males?" Do they guide the citizenship test? If not, why not? Why should native-born Americans learn one thing in high school while immigrants learn another thing in citizenship class?
And so, we're back to using the date of the signing of the Declaration of Independence as a test item. It's so much simpler.
But what should citizens know?...I knew a woman in college who refused to believe that someone named Hoover had ever been president. She identified Hoover with the FBI and the vacuum cleaner. Her major was education, and she did just fine.
I'm not even going to touch that one.
Maybe a civics test for the 21st century needs to go beyond traditional facts and history to deal with matters of real significance in American society. Here are a few suggested sample questions that might help:
Explain the concepts "right of way," "right on red" and "yield."
What is a co-pay?
Arrange in order, smallest to largest: jumbo, giant, extra large.
Who was the Great Emancipator?
Who was the Great Unindicted Co-conspirator?
What is it that Pete Rose doesn't get?
Ruben or Clay?
Should you buy the extended warranty?
Under what circumstances do you agree with the BCS, the designated hitter and instant replay?
If professional wrestling is fixed, how come they can still get hurt?
Sounds like as good a test as any.
Posted by kswygert at January 20, 2004 08:41 PM