Evaluation of Student Understanding of the First Amendment
Through the Use of Large-Scale Databases

David L. Buckner
Jeffrey Hawkins
Oklahoma State University

     Participatory government has long been the standard in the United States. The creation of institutions such as the House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress, and documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United State of America bear this out. Questions, however, pertaining to the levels of civic competence and civic responsibility achieved by our citizenry must be asked in light of surveys such as the one recently conducted by CNN in which a greater percentage of persons queried knew the names of the “Three Stooges” (Curly, Larry and Moe) than knew the three branches of our governmental system (Executive, Judiciary and Legislative). In a similar light, television host Jay Leno frequently emphasizes our lack of civic understanding through periodic episodes of “Jaywalking,” where people are asked simple questions and the television audience laughs at their less than academically correct assertions. The purpose of this study is to examine the first amendment right to free speech, and make assertions concerning student understanding of this highly debated component of the American Bill of Rights.
     Research studies have been conducted in an effort to determine the civic competency of our young adults enrolled in our public school systems. The purpose of this study is to evaluate results from some of those studies and through a comparison of accumulated data make specific assertions regarding the level of understanding these students have about specific areas of civic understanding. In this evaluation, student responses concerning the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are considered. Data for this evaluation were obtained from the results of the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study, the 1972 – 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), the annual surveys conducted by the First Amendment Center between 1999 – 2006, and the 2005 Knight Foundation Survey.
     Written by James Madison and ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights provides Americans with specific freedoms designed to protect the citizenry from a possibly abusive government. The first of these amendments reads
     “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Madison, 1789).
     The concept of free speech associated with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is certainly not new. Open and frank speech can be found within the political ideology of both ancient Greece and Rome, and The English Bill of Rights provided yet another template from which our Founding Fathers could develop our own Bill of Rights. Although some differences do exist, Madison undoubtedly relied upon these examples from the past to protect the rights of citizens in America’s future.
     Early writings of our Founding Fathers were frequently made available to the public through publication and sale of pamphlets such as “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, or through public postings by town criers. Public education provided a forum where civic rights and responsibilities were part of a relatively universal curriculum, with many states requiring students to participate in mandated courses on civics and government. Education has undergone tremendous changes during the last two centuries. Philosophies have changed in response to changes in our societal goals and ideals. It would appear, however, that the learning of civics and civic responsibility have not kept up with the changing times (Pratt, 2001). David Hoff (1999) has indicated that our children know very little about civics beyond the very basic principles, and Parker (2003) asserts that

“There is a democratic education problem in the United States. The young are not learning properly to care for the body politic, and the body politic is not adequately caring for the young” (p.14)

     Supporting research by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has indicated that students in American schools are less than adequately prepared in the area of civics understanding. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics Report Card  (Johnson & Vanneman, 2001) indicates that 22% of eighth graders and 26% of twelfth graders scored at the proficient level or higher in the area of civics achievement, and only 2% and 4% of the tested students scored above the proficient level. It is also apparent that little has changed since the NAEP survey. The 2006 NAEP survey of civic competence demonstrated a notable increase in civic understanding for 4th graders, however, scores for 8th and 12th graders failed to show any significant improvements (Lutkus & Weiss, 2007). In addition to the limited civic understanding that has been evidenced, data also indicate that student attitudes towards the first amendment are less than desirable. Campbell’s (1969) research indicated that students had no precise understanding of free speech. Knight Foundation research (2004) portrays a grim picture concerning student and teacher attitudes towards the First Amendment, and more recent research indicates that while the situation has changed somewhat, it has changed very little (Watson & Childers, 2005).
     During data analysis, student responses were evaluated from two considerably different points of view. First, whether or not the student responses actually reflect student understanding of the First Amendment? As a further extension of this possibility, consideration must be made regarding whether curricular problems exist, or if the lack of understanding might be due to the inability of students to critically analyze the complex ideology associated with democracy (Richardson, 1993). Engaging critical thinking skills is essential when making complex decisions about interpretations of survey questions, skills directly related to intellectual autonomy (Kamii, 1991). Secondly, do the responses reflect moral considerations rather than a lack of knowledge? Questions concerning issues such as flag burning and hate speech could certainly elicit emotional responses that in no way reflect a lack of understanding on the part of the respondents. Data were obtained from each of the databases that included specific questions from survey instruments and the associated responses in percentage format. Researchers downloaded codebooks constructed from taglists, and the results for each question area were compared to determine student understanding.
Study Backgrounds
     The IEA Civic Education Survey was part of a two-stage international study conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Respondents from twenty-eight countries were surveyed to evaluate student understanding of civics and civics education. Respondents from all of the countries except Israel (who surveyed older students) were 14-year olds. Respondents from the United States were 2,811 ninth-graders from 124 public and private schools across the nation.
     The General Social Surveys (GSS) have been conducted by the National Opinion Research Center since 1972. In 1994 the National Opinion Research Center began conducting the survey biennially. Upon completion of each round of surveys, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research prepares a cumulative dataset that merges previous years of the GSS into a single file, with each year or survey constituting a sub-file. Main areas covered in the survey include socioeconomics, social mobility, the family, race and sex relations, civil liberties and morality.
     Beginning in 1999, the First Amendment Center has conducted telephone surveys annually published as the “State of the First Amendment” report. Each successive survey is compared to previous data to provide a longitudinal representation of First Amendment information. The 2005 survey included interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults.
     The two-year research project commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and conducted by the University of Connecticut surveyed 112,003 high school students, 8,000 teachers, and 500 principals and other administrators from 544 high schools across the United States.
Findings
     Table 1 provides a breakdown of variables from the 1999 CivEd Survey. Responses to these questions provide a clearer view of ninth-grader’s understanding of what is good or bad for democracy.  Evaluation of these responses indicates that a majority of the students (51.5 percent) thought that having a press free from government control was good for democracy. Similarly, preventing critical people from speaking at public meetings was considered by over 70 percent of the students as being bad or very bad for democracy, as was preventing anti-democratic television shows (53.5 percent),  preventing anti-democratic peaceful rallies (58.1 percent), and prohibition of anti-democratic speeches (57.3 percent). Student responses to a question about violation of laws which violate human rights, however, are in stark contrast to their responses to the previous questions. When asked whether or not violation of such laws was good or bad for democracy, fully 66 percent of the students polled indicated that such violation was either bad, or very bad for democracy. Whether or not student responses were due to traditional beliefs in obeying the law, or due to a lack of critical thinking skills is unknown. Regardless, responses to this variable clearly indicate that ninth-grade students did not possess the advanced, critical thinking skills needed to fully understand the concept presented.
     Data obtained from the 1972 – 2004 General Social Surveys concerned public activities such as protests, classroom instruction, and publication or anti-democratic materials. Students were asked whether or not confidential defense and economic plans should be published in the newspapers. An overwhelming majority, 83.2 percent, indicated that defense materials should not be published, and 61.3 percent supported publication of economic plans. In sharp contrast to the CivEd Survey responses about obedience to the law, 57.3 percent of the respondents to this survey indicated that rather than blindly obey the law, one should follow one’s conscience, even if it meant disobeying the law.
     Table 2 provides a breakdown of responses to questions concerning various methods of protest against the government and ideological expression. Large numbers of the respondents supported activities such as public protests (83.4 percent), protest publications (69.6 percent), public demonstrations (80.2 percent), racists holding public meetings (62.1 percent), publication of books written by revolutionaries (69.5 percent), and publishing books written by racists (64.6 percent). One the other hand, respondents were opposed to a national strike against the government (59.8 percent), occupation of government offices in protest (81.7 percent), and damaging of government buildings (91.2 percent). The strongest indicator, however, were the negative responses concerning whether or not racists or revolutionaries should be allowed to teach children (76.8 percent and 79.5 percent respectively).
     The McKnight Foundation survey specifically addressed issues pertaining to freedom of expression and free speech. Data reflect support of issues such as expression of unpopular opinions (83 percent), allowing offensive lyrics by musicians (70 percent), freedom of the press to publish without government approval (51 percent), and permitting high school students to report controversial issues in school newspapers without the approval of school authorities (58 percent). These responses indicate that the students possessed a general understanding of free speech issues. However, an overwhelming majority of the students (74 percent) indicated that people should not be allowed to burn or desecrate the flag as a political statement. Again, as with the CivEd Survey question concerning obedience to laws that violate human rights, there is no specific indicator as to whether or not this is a moral response, or indicates a lack of understanding of what freedoms the First Amendment actually protects (Table 3).
     Table 4 indicates student understanding of current laws defining certain aspects of free speech. Specific inquiry was made regarding modes of free expression and their legality, specifically flag burning, Internet censorship, and whether or not citizens have the right to incite the public with prank fire alarms in crowded arenas. Particularly disconcerting is the overwhelming majority of students (75%) who believed that under current laws Americans do not have the right to burn the flag as a means of political protest. When asked whether or not the government has the right to restrict indecent material on the Internet, student responses were almost evenly split (49% yes and 51% no). Regarding shouting of “fire” in a crowded arena as a prank a vast majority (77%) responded negatively.
     The data in Table 5 reflect the student’s own perceptions of their understanding of freedoms that are protected under the First Amendment. Student’s responses demonstrate knowledge concerning free speech (56%), but very limited knowledge about freedom of the press (13%), freedom of religion (17%), the right to petition (3%), and the right of assembly (11%). Data were obtained from the State of the First Amendment 2006 Final Annotated Survey. Additionally, respondents were asked whether or not they agreed with various statements about the right of newspapers to criticize the military, offensive musical lyrics, offending various religious groups, governmental requests to withhold publishing information that might damage the efforts of the war on terror, and whether or not political candidates should be allowed to criticize the actions of government while campaigning.
     Results from the CivEd Survey indicate that the 14 year-old students queried possessed a somewhat liberal sense of the First Amendment. A large majority of the students believed that newspapers should not be under governmental control, and that persons with ideologies critical of the government should be allowed to have an open forum for their opinions. Views regarding what is good or bad for democracy were relatively consistent, however, student response to variable BS3A1 concerning disobeying a law that violates human rights suggests a lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the students. Nearly 66 percent of the respondents believed that disobeying a law which violates human rights was bad for democracy (65.9%). Two possible reasons for these responses stand out. First, students in the study were also asked for indicators for what responsible adults normally do, and many of the students indicated that responsible adults obey the law. This is certainly a responsible answer. The second possibility is that the students simply did not understand the question or they lacked the higher order thinking skills associated with moral development and adult behaviors. Kohlberg’s assertions regarding moral development support the latter of the two possibilities (Lickona, 1983). While either explanation is plausible, the important aspect to consider is that the students did not answer this question in a manner consistent with the other questions asked in this portion of the survey.
     Our Founding Fathers anticipated a citizenry actively involved in the democratic process, each citizen being expected to be highly informed of the issues of the day. Research has evidenced that our youth are not adequately prepared for their future civic responsibilities, and they do not have the requisite knowledge to assume their roles as leaders of our society. The 2006 NAEP survey of civics (Lutkus & Weiss, 2007) revealed that scores for the 8th and 12th graders showed no appreciable differences since 1998. While scores for the 4th graders did increase by a raw score of 4 points, the increase was not statistically significant. An interesting instructional aspect that educators and administrators should consider is that while 4th grade students received instruction in the rights and responsibilities of citizens, the 8th and 12th graders did not. Perhaps this is justification for educators to seriously reconsider the scope and sequence of our elementary and secondary civics instruction.

References
Campbell, L. (1969). Teenager’s attitudes toward the First Amendment. Eric Document: ED033953.
Galston, W. (2001) Political knowledge, political engagement and civic education. American Review of Political Science, 4,
      pp. 217–234.
Hoff, D. (1999, November 24). Beyond basics, civics eludes U.S. students. Education Week, 19(13), p. 1-2.
Johnson, C. & Vanneman, A. (2001). NAEPfact-Civics: What do 12th graders know, and what can they do? (NCES
      Publication #2001461).
Kamii, C. (1991). The importance of critical thinking and choice making. School Psychology Review, 20(3), 382-388.
Knight Foundation (2004). Future of the First Amendment.
Knight Foundation (2006). Update to the future of the First Amendment.
Lickona, T. (1983). Raising good children. New York: Bantam Books.
Lutkus, A., and Weiss, A. (2007).The Nation’s Report Card: Civics 2006 (NCES 2007–476).  U.S. Department of Education,
      National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Madison, J. (1789). The Bill of Rights. Philadelphia, PA.
Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.
Parker, W. (1990, November) Assessing citizenship. Educational Leadership, 17-22.
Pratt, R. (2001). Civic education in a democracy. Theory into Practice, 27(4), 304-308.
Richardson, S. (1993). Active civic learning for secondary school students. Social Studies, Sep/Oct, 84(5), 196-202.
Watson, W. & Childers, S. (2005). Don't know much about the First Amendment. American Editor, 80(3), 13-31.

Table 1.
1998 CivEd Survey Variables