Chapter 9

What is To Be Done?

The function of education is to teach one

to think intensively and to think critically.

Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.

- Reverand Martin Luther King, Jr.

The above view of Baptist minister, civil rights leader, and political philosopher Martin Luther King, Jr. has never been achieved country wide. The U.S. education system has failed in teaching critical thinking, especially as it applies to U.S. civic life. Changing our way of thinking is required to find solutions to our current political malaise. The central argument of this book offers to save U.S. democracy requires implementation of programs to strengthen civic education and develop critical thinking. One method to address these problems is to revise elementary, secondary, and post-secondary academic programs in civic education and critical thinking. These actions are discussed in more detail below. For those beyond their academic years, this book provides the minimal information, knowledge, and learning skills required for adults to become civically informed citizens. It is hoped the material in this book generates additional interest in adults learning more about civic education and critical thinking. This includes understanding U.S. founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, recognizing how U.S. democracy is still only an experiment, developing information literacy skills (including how to spot misinformation), and learning to conduct complex System 2 (slow) thinking using a critical-thinking process. A lot of work remains!

Using Critical Thinking

After exposure to the material in this book:

As highlighted in Chapter 8, will 80 percent of U.S. citizens continue to vote with their emotions and use a System 1 (fast) thinking approach? Very Likely!

Or will U.S. citizens go forth and employ critical thinking and System 2 (slow) thinking in all their civic endeavors? We Wish, but Highly Doubtful!

Substantial time and experience are needed to complete a full System 2 thinking project. Some high information people, who may know substantial information on the issues in an election, are the most likely to become accomplished System 2 critical thinkers. Some moderate information people may also embrace critical thinking. Low information people are unlikely to use the critical-thinking techniques presented in this book. Instead, low information people will likely base their voting and other civic engagement decisions on the emotional constraints in Figure 8.2. Such low information people are a major part of the estimated 40 percent of U.S. citizens who vote based simply on partisan political party ideologies and legacies. This is why beginning in elementary school we should strengthen the teaching of civic education and critical thinking. Hopefully over time this will reduce the number of U.S. low information people.

It is hoped those reading this book will use at least some of the central tenets presented about critical thinking in their System 2 (slow) thinking. These include:

Seek information sources higher on the Figure 3.3 priority list. Try not to rely primarily on the Internet and Media for information.

Assess all information found for truthfulness using the Figure 3.7 checklist. Be particularly aware of misinformation, disinformation, and gaslighting. Question Everything!

Research and analyze the differing points of view, assumptions, and beliefs at work in a situation. Look for and reject invalid beliefs that are based primarily in misinformation (usually lies and gaslighting).

Seek options and alternatives for all important factors in conceptualizing the thinking and behavior under consideration.

Once initial findings are developed, use implication and consequence analytic techniques to identify potential unintended consequences.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is probably not an answer to U.S. citizens’ lack of critical thinking, even if there are many people who may hope so. Britannica defines AI as “the ability of digital computers or computer-controlled robots to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings [i.e., thinking and acting on that thinking].”^[1] AI systems must “learn” by being digitally loaded with masses of data (information) and programmed to “think” with this data by using complex algorithms based in logic and reasoning. The data uploaded to AI may be either truthful or false (misinformation). The thinking algorithms may be programmed with bad reasoning, including biases and logic fallacies (see Chapter 4). This can lead to AI producing highly biased and questionable results. AI probably cannot replicate the abstract Figure 7.1 Human Mental Model, especially in terms of modeling human emotions. This is particularly true of the emotion of empathy, which is so important to human thinking and the human condition.

There have already been cases where AI “bots” were programmed to produce partisan political outputs, both in writing and publishing partisan messages and in creating or altering photographs and videos. These bots can manipulate citizens into either supporting or denigrating certain political candidates, governmental officials, and media personalities. Because they are automated, these bots can create unlimited social media accounts and flood social media with misinformation. Thinkers must continually assess their information sources for fake material likely generated by AI.

Strengthening Civic Education

Strengthening U.S. civic education will assist in improving U.S. civic life. The state of civic education at the elementary and secondary school levels across the United States is sketchy at best. A February 2018 report by the Center for American Progress^[2] found ten U.S. states have no requirement for a secondary school civics course. Of the forty states with a civics course requirement, only eight states and the District of Columbia require at least a full year of civics or government instruction. Thirty-one states had what was considered a “full” civics curriculum including instruction on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, comparisons of democracies, state and local voting, and civic engagement. Twenty-six states had no requirements for community service (actual civic engagement and community participation), although it is common for individual school districts to require community service before students graduate, even when not mandated by the state. Sixteen states require passage of a civics examination to graduate from secondary school. The situation with teaching U.S. history is equally as sketchy, as a 2018 report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)^[3] found U.S. eighth graders with a weak grade-level understanding of their own history. NAEP found that only 15 percent of eighth graders tested were grade-level proficient or displayed advanced knowledge of U.S. history. A subsequent 2022 NAEP assessment found U.S. history knowledge even lower. NAEP efforts included assessment of proficiency in the history of U.S. democracy. There remains significant work to strengthen U.S. civic education, both in terms of civics or government education and in the history of U.S. democracy.

Action to strengthen civic education starts with the states. State education bureaucracies may revise elementary and secondary school curriculums with the addition of civic education and U.S. history student learning outcomes (SLOs). Everything starts with the SLOs. This would require advocates of civic education to lobby state legislators and/or state education departments to revise or issue new SLOs. Revised or new SLOs are required to energize teachers at the elementary and secondary school levels. Lobbying and engaging local school boards is also required.

Recommended minimum standards for civic education would likely include a required secondary school (high school) civics course with a full curriculum covered over an entire academic year, a U.S. history course covered over an entire year, and required standardized civics and U.S. history examinations prepared or approved by the state to graduate from secondary school. A period of community service should also be required for secondary school graduation to help foster civic engagement. The final goal would be to ensure those completing secondary school, i.e., those becoming new voters 18 years or older, would have a satisfactory level of civics and U.S. history knowledge to become informed citizens and future voters.

Those desiring to improve civic education levels may consult several organizations with civic education emphases to assist with developing SLOs and actual curriculums. The Center for Civic Education^[4] is just one such organization that has prepared curriculums to improve civic education. Its six-unit program “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution” may replace or supplement existing curriculums at the secondary school level. This program includes units on:

What are the Philosophical and Historical Foundations of the American Political System?

How did the Framers Create the Constitution?

How has the Constitution Been Changed to Further the Ideals Contained in the Declaration of Independence?

How have the Values and Principles Embodied in the Constitution shaped American Institutions and Practices?

What Rights Does the Bill of Rights Protect?

What Challenges Might Face American Constitutional Democracy in the Twenty-first Century?^[5]

The Center for Civic Education found how students (and teachers) who complete the “We the People” and other center programs tend to vote at higher rates and have higher levels of civic engagement.^[6] Chapters 5 and 6 touch on many of the above listed topics on the U.S. Constitution and democracy and is an example of the background and context material informed citizens should know. Additionally, those with good civic education grounding should understand comparative world governing systems that are alternatives to democracy. This material is summarized in Chapter 6 on political cultures. For example, informed citizens should know the nuances in the use of the term “socialism” discussed in Chapter 6. There is not one type of socialism, but at least three—Marxist-Socialism, Authoritarian-Socialism, and Democratic-Socialism, all with widely different characteristics. Informed citizens should also have a broad understanding of the societal conditions that correlate with differing governing systems as covered in Chapter 6.

Civic education teaching is also a problem at the post-secondary level. Many undergraduate college programs, especially at liberal arts institutions, usually require general education courses mandating all students—no matter their major—take one or more courses in civics/government and U.S. history. However, a 2015 study of U.S. post-secondary institutions found only one-fifth of the 1,000 institutions surveyed required a civics course.^[7] Major curriculum requirements in the hard sciences, engineering, and mathematics, compete for valuable student time and general education courses such as civics, history, and the humanities often fall by the wayside. As not all U.S. citizens attend post-secondary schools, satisfactory knowledge of civics and U.S. history must be completed in secondary schools as described above. In summary, the U.S. is not properly preparing its future voters to become informed citizens.

Developing Critical Thinking

Critical thinking instruction should be a requirement for all U.S. citizens. There are those who think cRitical thinking should become the fourth R of basic U.S. education, arguing it must be taught and emphasized like the existing three Rs: Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic. This means critical-thinking basic techniques must be introduced early to elementary school students, more advanced techniques added as students advance through the grades, and the techniques exercised and thinking evaluated across the entire elementary, secondary, and post-secondary school curriculums—just as with the original three Rs. This is easier said than done. Getting schools to adopt new curriculums and instructing teachers on how to present the new material is a huge task.

As with improving civic education and U.S. history curriculums, the first step is for state education agencies to publish guidance for including critical-thinking instruction in school curriculums. There are several non-governmental organizations states could consult as they revise and create their critical-thinking SLOs. The Foundation for Critical Thinking^[8] and other organizations specializing in advancing critical thinking and information literacy (media literacy) instruction are good places to start. A handful of states have already issued SLOs that cover some parts of critical thinking, but actions requiring comprehensive critical-thinking curriculums (Figure 2.7) and more states implementing such curriculums are needed. There are several critical-thinking frameworks that could be adopted, but for my money the best is the Figure 2.7 framework modified from the work of the Foundation for Critical Thinking.^[9]

A critical-thinking curriculum needs to be presented based on the readiness of students to comprehend the material. For example, starting in kindergarten and grades 1-3, students could be slowly introduced to Figure 2.7 information, alternative, and interpretation elements. Later elementary and secondary school grades could add additional elements with a goal that by the time students finish secondary school they have learned and are experienced in completing critical-thinking projects using all the Figure 2.7 elements, including knowing how to present their thinking findings in a logical argumentation format (see Chapter 4). For elementary and secondary school students without previous critical-thinking instruction, they should be inserted into the curriculum at the level where they are ready to learn. Keys to critical-thinking instruction in elementary and secondary schools requires it be systematic and comprehensive, as it is expanded and reinforced across grade levels in every subject area—not only in humanities and social science courses, but also in mathematics and science courses. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Figure 2.7 critical-thinking framework is an expansion of the scientific method, and applies to both the humanities and hard sciences, and thus can be taught and reinforced across all academic disciplines.

Teaching critical thinking at the post-secondary level is also challenging, especially when most students entering college have no background in critical thinking from their secondary school programs. Post-secondary school curriculums are different from elementary and secondary schools in that the post-secondary schools generally establish their own SLOs—usually at the instructor, program, departmental, school, or college levels. There may be a state post-secondary agency providing general curriculum guidance, but most of the curriculum development is within colleges. Post-secondary schools are also subject to guidance from regional accrediting agencies and specific academic disciplines and professional agencies certifying individual academic curriculums. A number of these accrediting agencies and certifying agencies have provided guidance on teaching critical thinking—but more is needed. The goal of post-secondary critical-thinking instruction, at both undergraduate and graduate levels, should be for students to learn and gain experience in completing complex thinking projects using in-depth mastery of all the Figure 2.7 elements, including preparing their thinking findings in a logical argumentation format. Post-secondary level students should develop advanced critical-thinking skills in information searching, the conceptualization element (modeling, theorizing), and in interpretation and inference techniques as they learn to work closely with faculties and librarians, expanding their capabilities in thinking theoretically, and advance their mathematical and other inferential skills.

Academic research reveals instruction in critical thinking leads to a marked improvement in the thinking capabilities of those subject to this instruction. Several Canadian researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the outcomes of critical-thinking programs existing before 2015.^[10] A meta-analysis combines data from multiple independent studies to better determine trends and patterns. In this Canadian meta-analysis, 684 previous independent studies were included. The meta-analysis found that most efforts to teach critical thinking included individual study—where students read about the topic, receive classroom lecture instruction, and solve problems individually. They also found the most successful critical-thinking instructional programs combined three additional instructional activities: (1) dialogue, (2) authentic instruction, and (3) mentoring. Dialogue is characterized as learning by group discussion, such as Team Based Learning, where students solve problems in groups through discussing a particular problem while using a critical-thinking framework. Authentic instruction presents groups of students with genuine real-world problems that make sense to them (particularly if in their academic major), where the problems engage and stimulate student inquiry. Mentoring is another individual learning activity, where students are mentored, tutored, or coached by teachers, teaching assistants, more advanced students, or internship supervisors. The Canadian meta-analysis found that all three of these additional instructional activities were required to obtain the best outcomes in student critical thinking.^[11] Critical thinking can be taught, but it requires curriculum requirements, trained instructors, and the political will to change how critical thinking is taught.

Challenges to Overcome

As with most societal issues, especially highly politicized issues, there are several challenges to overcome in strengthening civic education programs and instituting critical thinking among U.S. citizens. These include challenges of funding and political will. When revising and issuing new SLOs in any academic topic, funding is required to purchase new textbooks and teaching materials (posters, flipcharts, software, etc.) and for teacher/faculty training. Offering teacher training seminars or professional education programs is costly when considering the travel and per diem costs for off-site instruction, in addition to the costs for consultants to deliver the instruction either on- or off-site. There also may be a need to hire additional staff or teachers to coordinate and deliver civic education and critical-thinking programs. School funding at all levels comes from a combination of state support (some from federal sources), local taxes, and tuition payments (private schools and post-secondary programs). In most schools funding is limited and new programs in civic education and critical thinking would need to compete for funding support alongside a myriad of other school priorities.

Generating the political will to strengthen civic education and institute critical thinking may be even more of a formidable challenge than funding issues. It should be expected that resistance will be encountered at the state, local, and even teacher levels. There is existing state-level resistance to critical-thinking programs. For example, the 2012 platform of a state political party included the item:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical-thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.^[12]

This platform item caused a minor tempest in educational and media circles. Once the criticism of the platform item arose, the party tried to explain that the words “critical thinking” were not supposed to be in the above text. Both then and even now, the anti-critical-thinking movement offers how critical thinking cannot be effectively taught^[13]—even with this being in opposition to academic research findings (see above meta-analysis discussion). The anti-critical thinking movement appears as a classic counterfeit agenda versus hidden agenda. The counterfeit agenda entails anti-critical thinking advocates using misinformation, gaslighting, etc., anchored in ideological beliefs to criticize teaching critical thinking. However, their hidden agenda is to prevent the development of citizens with higher order thinking skills (i.e., critical thinkers). The above party platform item is against challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and parental authority—in other words, not teaching future citizens to think for themselves. It is implied that the party does not want religious and political ideologies challenged in order to more easily manipulate citizens to vote for their party. This anti-critical-thinking sentiment exists at different political levels country-wide.

With such widespread national sentiments often against higher level thinking and additional civic education, it would be a challenge to convince state legislatures and state education departments to issue SLOs strengthening civic education and instituting critical thinking. Even if the states did issue revised and new SLOs, there would likely be additional resistance at local school boards to implement revised curriculums. There has been a large-scale effort over the past several years where politicized local school boards have intervened, at the urging of vocal groups of parents, to “scrub” state-issued SLOs and school curriculums to remove items objectionable to the complaining parents. Thus, SLOs addressing the history of U.S slavery, treatment of Native Americans, and U.S. population diversity, especially sex education, gender identify, and sexual orientation issues, are being removed from elementary, secondary school, and even some post-secondary curriculums. This degrades student historical knowledge and their understanding of the current world. There has also been school board action to remove books from school libraries that cover any of the removed topics. Thus, it should be expected that SLOs addressing higher order thinking and strengthening civic education are likely to also be resisted by many local school boards. The hidden agenda with such actions are similar to the above national movement to prevent certain religious and political ideologies from being challenged, i.e., to suppress critical thinking to better manipulate citizens.

Resistance to revised or newly issued SLOs should also be expected from elementary and secondary school teachers and post-secondary school faculty. Teachers and faculty must be taught how to deliver critical-thinking instruction. This could be accomplished through targeted seminars or continuing education. In many cases, especially for those who have taught for many years, teachers will likely resist new curriculums (SLOs) and new teaching methods. Teachers can become quite set in their traditional ways concerning what they teach and how they teach, thus many will be highly resistant to any changes in their existing teaching content and methods. Introducing a critical-thinking structure at the elementary and secondary school levels adds a new layer to what teachers are already expected to cover, which may add to the resistance. Post-secondary instructors, who usually teach and follow a strict format within their academic disciplines’ research methods courses, may be even more resistant to adding critical thinking to their curriculums. However, one way to implement critical-thinking instruction, and not add another layer to teaching curriculums, is to offer post-secondary research courses structured on the Figure 2.7 framework to replace their previous research methods courses. Figure 2.7 is applicable to both the deductive approach to hard science and social science research and to the inductive approach to research in the humanities, thus it applies to any post-secondary curriculum. Being trained in Figure 2.7 and using this framework in all their post-secondary complex thinking projects would go a long way to improving country-wide critical thinking.

Some Final Thoughts

I realize the above recommendations face large challenges. To get state education agencies, local school boards, elementary and secondary teachers, parents, and students all moving in the same direction on civic education and critical thinking is a tough but not impossible task. The previous section discusses some of the “landmines” those attempting to improve civic education and critical thinking will encounter at the elementary and secondary levels. The same is true of getting post-secondary institution faculties to require general education civics/government courses and adopt critical-thinking curriculums.

While I was teaching at Eastern Kentucky University, a university-wide effort was undertaken in the early-2000s to voluntarily inject critical thinking into all academic programs. I was one of about 25 faculty “Quality Enhancement Program Coaches” who were trained and qualified in critical thinking and other advanced instructional techniques and tasked to teach these to other EKU faculty (about 800 full-time faculty). The goal was to advance the quality of the university’s overall instruction. After 5–years of aggressive work, our Coaches’ group estimated we reached only 10-15 percent of the EKU faculty, i.e., those who voluntarily chose to attend our seminars. Without any negative career consequences for not implementing critical thinking, the remainder of the faculty continued to teach the way they always had—meaning how their academic disciplines prepared them. The EKU critical-thinking effort was substantially reduced after the first 5-years due to budget cuts. I was lucky as all the faculty in my EKU Homeland Security program were trained in and enthusiastic about critical thinking and we continued to infuse it throughout all the students’ major courses. Our Homeland Security faculty members were repeat winners of the EKU Critical Thinking Teacher-of-the-Year Awards. Our assessments of the success of our critical-thinking efforts found similar positive improvement in student thinking as uncovered in the Canadian meta-analysis discussed above.^[14]

Encouraging adults beyond their school years to improve their civic education knowledge and embrace critical thinking is also a colossal challenge. This requires self-discipline to voluntarily seek additional information about democracy and world governments and to adopt critical thinking in all their complex System 2 (slow) thought processes. Even for those becoming advocates of critical thinking, there is no expectation they will become experts in critical-thinking techniques. Conditions where citizens used (or at least thought about) the critical-thinking process would be a major victory, as it would help achieve the goal of citizens “…thinking about their thinking while they are thinking in order to make their thinking better….”^[15]

The bottom line is that significant political will, additional funding, and a country-wide change in citizen attitudes would be required to improve U.S. democracy. Improving civic education and instituting critical thinking is a starting point. Without such action, U.S. democracy will likely continue to be threatened as highlighted in the Chapter 1 opening song lyrics from “Brain-Dead Nation!” This is not a situation most U.S. citizens should want!

Notes

1. B.J. Copeland, “artificial intelligence,” Britannica, item updated September 2, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence (accessed September 3, 2025).↑

2. Center for American Progress, “The State of Civics Education,” February 21, 2018, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-civics-education/ (accessed December 14, 2022).↑

3. National Assessment of Education Progress,”2018 Report U.S. History Assessment at Grade 8,” https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ushistory/ (accessed December 14, 2022).↑

4. Center for Civic Education, https://www.civiced.org/ (accessed December 14, 2022).↑

5. Center for Civic Education, “We the People,” https://www.civiced.org/we-the-people (accessed December 14, 2022).↑

6. Diana Owen, “Evaluation Report: Strengthening Democracy through History and Civics,” Center for Civic Education, November 2021, https://files.civiced.org/pdfs/research/Academies_FinalReport_Georgetown_November2021.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022).↑

7. Study cited in Richard Haass, “Why We Need Civics,” The Atlantic, January 22, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/american-identity-democracy-civics-education-requirement/672789/ (accessed January 22, 2023). ↑

8. The Foundation for Critical Thinking, https://www.criticalthinking.org/ (accessed July 31, 2022).↑

9. See Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking, Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life, 2^nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2014), and Gerald Nosich, Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculums 4^th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NY: Pearson Education, Inc., 2012).↑

10. Phillip C. Abrami, Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I, Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Persson, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research June 2015, Vol. 85, No. 2, 275-314.↑

11. Ibid.↑

12. Valerie Strauss, “Texas GOP rejects “critical thinking” skills. Really?” The Washington Post, July 9, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html (accessed December 16, 2022).↑

13. Ibid.↑

14. From 2014 to 2016 the EKU Homeland Security faculty assessed the effectiveness of their curriculum heavy in critical thinking instruction. With permission of the Law School Admission Council, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) Logical Reasoning sections were used for the evaluation (using past tests published in LSAT study guides). During the assessment, approximately 200 senior Homeland Security majors were tested in their last capstone course in Leadership and Management. Most majors exceeded the national average for the LSAT Logical Reasoning scores, i.e., among students nationwide applying to law school. The Homeland Security majors had received four years of critical-thinking instruction. We also tested approximately 150 new Homeland Security majors in their freshman Introduction to Homeland Security course. In comparison of the freshman and senior scores, we noticed a significant improvement in logical reasoning in the seniors during their four years of Homeland Security courses (something expected after four years of college instruction). Unfortunately, due to the short period of the assessments, there were no students who took the assessments in both their freshman and senior years. As a control group, we also tested approximately 90 juniors and seniors in other majors who enrolled in our Introduction to Homeland Security course as an elective. This control group was in majors without intensive critical-thinking instruction. Comparing the control group to the Homeland Security senior majors, there was a statistically significant finding of how the 4-year critical thinking curriculum improved the Homeland Security majors’ logical reasoning skills. Due to the small sizes of our test samples, these results can only be generalized to the students participating in the assessment. However, the assessment results were robust enough to justify continuing our critical-thinking instruction.↑

15. Paul and Elder, 367.↑