Flunking the Citizenship Test

Anyone who's ever seen Jay Leno do one of his "Jaywalking" segments on NBC, locating average Americans and asking them factual questions on street corners, knows there are far too many Americans who know next to nothing about just about everything. They can't name our first president or don't even know what the phrase "Founding Fathers" means. Ask them to name our current vice president and watch the brain waves flat line.

Newsweek magazine recently announced its disgust after it offered the government's official citizenship test (the one we require immigrants to pass before being naturalized) to 1,000 Americans. Thirty-eight percent of the sample failed. Newsweek worried in its headline: "The country's future is imperiled by our ignorance."

The magazine was careful enough to report that civic ignorance isn't new. One study found the yearly shifts in civic knowledge since World War II have averaged out to "slightly under 1 percent." But it worried that today's interconnected world is "becoming more and more inhospitable to incurious know-nothings — like us."

It's easy to get discouraged with the results. Sixty-five percent couldn't figure out that the Constitution was penned and adopted at the Constitutional Convention; 63 couldn't identify how many justices were on the Supreme Court (nine); and 73 percent couldn't identify that communism was what we opposed in the Cold War.

Current national leaders aren't so well known: 29 percent could not identify the current vice president (Joe Biden) and twice that percentage didn't identify the Speaker of the House (John Boehner).

Let's start with the positive angle here. It's a terrific idea to examine whether native-born citizens can pass the citizenship test and an astonishing embarrassment to learn how many can't. Some public schools have used the citizenship test as a social-studies project in civic knowledge. A daring principal could make passage of the citizenship test a high-school graduation requirement. Promoting better civic and historical knowledge is an important cause.

But this leads to a follow-up question for Newsweek and its media colleagues: Do journalists see building civic knowledge as an important part of their job?

A few years ago, when pollsters asked Americans to name two of Snow White's Seven Dwarfs and two of the nine U.S. SupremeCourt justices, 77 percent of Americans polled were able to identify two dwarfs, while only 24 percent could name two Supreme Court justices.

But how often are the justices discussed on news programs, where ostensibly, Americans receive their civic education? A quick Nexis search for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to take one example, finds her mentioned less than once a month each on ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening newscasts in 2010: 10 on ABC, eight on NBC, six on CBS. That's just mentions, not stories.

Or take "communism." The word was mentioned just 19 times on the Big Three morning and evening newscasts in 2010 (eight on ABC, seven on CBS, four on NBC). That's despite Communist parties still ruling China, North Korea and Cuba, among others.

Perhaps the news media think they don't have time or space to waste on high-school basics about civics. Newsweek turns to liberal experts to find agreeable culprits for civic ignorance, such as "our reliance on market-driven programming rather than public broadcasting," which would "foster greater knowledge" than commercial news.

But guess what? Playing our Nexis game, Ginsburg was only mentioned six times and the word communism was only mentioned seven times on "PBS NewsHour" in all of 2010. Someone wouldn't necessarily get a better test score from Jim Lehrer than from Katie Couric.

The liberals at Newsweek also blamed America's decentralized or federalist system of government. We have civic ignorance, they report, since unlike Europeans and their majority-rule parliamentary systems, Americans have to contend with voting for "subnational" officials. Likewise, American schools are "decentralized" and managed by states, without a central national curriculum.

How ironic that Newsweek would find Americans ignorant for not knowing the authors of the Federalist Papers even as they blame federalism for our civic stupidity.

Naturally, the magazine also blamed America for having "one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world, with the top 400 households raking in more money than the bottom 60 percent combined." Those darn successful people. So if we more aggressively redistributed wealth, Newsweek suggests, more people would know who the vice president is.

There are more direct culprits that could correct this ignorance: teachers, parents and, yes, journalists, for not emphasizing this "rote knowledge" of the facts around which we organize our government and remember our history.

By the way, Newsweek only mentioned Ginsburg three times in 2010.

By L.  Brent Bozell  III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

CREATORS.COM

Education and the value on education in America is at an all time low.  Add to this the purposeful dumbing down of America by the Progressive Movement which includes brainwashing our children, re-writing history and textbooks,  Political Correctness and the co-opting of religion using social justice.  America will only survive as the same country we grew up in if parents stand-up and get involved in the education of their children and if Americans themselves re-educate themselves in history and current events and then share what they learn with others.

Could you pass the new citizenship test?

CLARKSTON, Georgia (CNN) -- James Yarsiah listened to his college classmates discuss whether the civics component of the new U.S. naturalization test -- which prospective citizens can start taking Wednesday -- is more challenging than its predecessor.

Students in a government course at Georgia Perimeter College examine the old and new citizenship tests.

Are new conceptual questions such as, "What does the Constitution do?" more difficult than old queries like "What is the Constitution?"

Is a question with a range of acceptable answers, such as the new "What is one reason colonists came to America?" preferable to the old "Why did the Pilgrims come to America?"

Yarsiah, a Liberia native who plans to seek U.S. citizenship, waited until the end of the discussion at Georgia Perimeter College to pipe up.

"I'm just going to study for it, take the test and move on," the 20-year-old said, drawing classmates' laughter. "The new one is not that much harder because of concepts and stuff. You still have to study."

But some in Professor Robert King's American Government class, which examined sample questions of the old and the new civics tests at CNN.com's request Monday, had other opinions on how immigrants who weren't raised to speak English  -- or even U.S. citizens -- might fare on the new version.

Many preferred the new test, which the government says includes more meaningful questions, such as those that involve a concept of, or critical thinking about, civics or history.

The new civics list, a pool of 100 possible questions for a test of up to 10, omits the old "How many stars are there on our flag?" and "Name the amendments that guarantee or address voting rights." Taking their place are questions like: "There are four amendments to the Constitution about who can vote. Describe one of them," and "What is one responsibility that is only for United States citizens?""It's more about really knowing something that you would get from living here ... rather than just reading about it and being a bookworm," said Joey Hornbuckle, 17, of Newnan, Georgia.

Others, including Ethiopia native Anteneh Workneh, addressed an issue that immigrant advocates have raised: Conceptual questions and answers might require a higher level of education and greater English-language dexterity.

He compared one question found on both tests -- "The House of Representatives has how many voting members?" -- with a new question: "Why do some states have more representatives?"

"The first one is a fact. They're going to quote the number: 435," Workneh, 25, said. "But the other one, you have to know more definitions of the words."

But classmate Simon Reiter said if applicants "don't ... know it, that doesn't mean they should get a passing grade."

"I think overall [the test is good] because it seems like it would make them more involved in the U.S. community," Reiter, 19, said.

The change

The old test will take a year to vanish. Anyone who applied for naturalization by Tuesday can choose either test if they take it by October 1, 2009. After that, only the new test will be given, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Anyone applying from Wednesday onward cannot take the old test.

Like the new civics exam, the old draws from a pool of more than 95 questions. Both ask applicants up to 10 questions, with applicants needing six correct to pass.

The test is not multiple-choice; applicants must know the answer directly and say it.

Both exams, given orally, are part of a larger naturalization test in which applicants also take English reading and writing exams. The whole test is one of the steps permanent legal residents take to be naturalized.

USCIS was on pace to receive more than 500,000 citizenship applications for a 12-month period starting in October 2007. An applicant's $675 fee allows for a test and one re-test, if necessary.

Some questions on the old civics test were kept. But many added items require applicants to learn more about U.S. history and citizenship, USCIS says.

"What we're against is rote memorization of trivial and arbitrary facts that have no impact in a citizen's life or do not cover fundamental concepts of American democracy," Alfonso Aguilar, chief of USCIS's citizenship office, said last year.

USCIS, which posts the questions, answers and study materials online, also says the new test isn't harder and that the English necessary is at a high-beginning level. Adult educators and community organizations helped with piloting and revisions, USCIS says.

Before the questions were unveiled last year, more than 6,000 citizenship-seekers volunteered to take a pilot. More than 92 percent passed on the first try -- better than the 84 percent first-try passing rate for the regular test at the time, USCIS says.

Immigrant advocates: English, civics programs under-resourced

Flavia Jimenez of the New Americans Initiative, a citizenship program of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said it was important to note the pilot takers were volunteers.

"Any individual who would self-select to take an exam is by definition better capable and probably educated enough to do this without help," Jimenez, NAI's program director, said.

She said some new questions put people with lower levels of education and English skills at a disadvantage. Community groups that help immigrants prepare may need to explain certain concepts in their native languages and then work on English to express the answer, she said.

She said preparing some applicants for the concepts will require more time, straining under-resourced English and civics programs.

Alice Barrett, who instructs a citizenship class in Chamblee, Georgia, said the old test appears more straightforward but the new study materials will be helpful. She taught the old test through Tuesday's deadline; she'll switch when a new class cycle starts.

"We have been encouraging students to sign up for the old test" because the nonprofit that runs the class was still digesting the new material, she said.

Sue Colussy, program director for immigration services at Catholic Charities Atlanta, said she understood the government's argument, but the more conceptual test will be more difficult, especially for the elderly.

She said many American citizens "couldn't pass the [old] civics test."

"This new test is just going to widen that gap between the person who passes the test and the average American, who doesn't have a clue," she said.