A public better educated on civics ought to be one of our top priorities, and the arrival of a bill this last session – which since has been signed into law – to revise Idaho state law on the subject was cause for immediate interest.
Interest, yes, but also concern. The opportunities for mischief here are almost limitless, and Idaho’s isn’t a legislature usually known in recent years for cautious self-restraint.
Welcome to House Bill 397, sponsored by Senator Cindy Carlson of Riggins and Representative Tony Wisniewski of Post Falls. The bill on its surface doesn’t seem especially problematic. The issues lie in the details and in what it easily can lead to.
Idaho for years has had a law on the books covering civics education which, as a description for the new one notes, requires “all secondary students demonstrate that they have met the state civics and government standards through the successful completion of the civics test as a graduation requirement.” That demonstration comes in the form of 100 questions drawn from the national citizenship test; the idea that American high school students should know as much about their government as newly-minted Americans do seems reasonable.
It also feels incomplete, which is why the idea of improving on it makes some sense. But one advantage of the current naturalization test is that it’s of long-standing and broadly accepted. If you’re going to tinker with the requirements, you should be careful – that is, if your intentions are honorable.
The new law, which is intended to take effect with the 2026-27 school year, replaces the citizenship test with “an assessment developed by the state department of education with the approval of the state board of education that includes but is not limited to the following components from the Idaho content standards in American government …” It goes on to list 11 specific items which must be included. These include “the influence of the history of Western civilization,” particular sections of the national constitution (not necessarily all of it) and the functions of state and local governments.
The bill also said “The state board of education may promulgate rules, subject to legislative approval” – which puts the legislature directly in the process of outlining and describing what students should think about their government.
None of those included items are necessarily wrong as a part of study, but they too feel incomplete, and people are likely to differ widely on what should and shouldn’t be included. They also seem grounded not in any kind of objective or scholarly standard but in a more ideological one, such as might appeal to (say) a Republican Idaho legislator.
Which brings us to the more subtle problem: The legislature now is getting into the question of what specifically must be taught in civics classes in Idaho high schools.
How long will it be until the learning requirements start to closely resemble the Idaho Republican party platform?
How long before civic education is used as a rationale for religious (Bible) instruction in classrooms, on grounds that the Bible was an influential document in national history? (Well, we’re pretty close to that right now.)
There’s a thin line here between education and indoctrination. The new law in itself doesn’t quite cross it, but it opens the temptation for legislators, starting in next year’s session, to dictate that Idaho students be taught – and formally accept as fact, as reported on tests – whatever it is their legislators want them to believe.
This is how you can move from a government responding to the will of its citizens, to telling those citizens what they must think – starting in school.
That is what is meant by a slippery slope.
Share on Facebook
