Reflecting on his experiences as a school board member in New York State before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Scott R. Levy argues persuasively in Why School Boards Matter: Reclaiming the Heart of American Education and Democracy (MIT Press, 2025) that scholars, political observers, and citizens should pay closer attention to how school boards operate. He urges education stakeholders to confront policy and political challenges through reason, civil dialogue, and best administrative practices, not by ideology and extreme partisanship. Levy argues for greater local autonomy, provided school boards adopt simple business planning and performance review techniques, attend to student and employee mental health, and engage with the community. Elected officials should stay in the governance lane, he says, managing resources, setting priorities, holding the leadership team accountable, and thinking about long-term risks and consequences. Unfortunately, many school boards are overwhelmed by federal and state mandates and culture war politics, Levy says. Citizen involvement is low, and many board members serve part-time and are unpaid. Conditions are ripe for board takeover by ideological extremists with little commitment to public schools. Nevertheless, the impetus for change should be locally based, he asserts. Reforms imposed from outside, especially those calling for greater centralization, will not work. Levy’s account is a living demonstration of the conflict between politics and administration, making the book a useful addition to courses on public policy, public administration, and subnational government. Furthermore, Why School Boards Matter reveals the many opportunities for civically-engaged political science programs and students to make a difference.

In their annual indices of democracy and freedom around the world, Freedom House and The Economist Intelligence Unit show increasing numbers of authoritarian governments and illiberal democracies, as well as backsliding among liberal democracies. To counter these trends, the APSA Rethinking Political Science Education project’s Final Report states that the undergraduate political science major should promote civic and political engagement. This paper attempts to situate the Final Report’s assumptions and aspirations within the realm of democratic theory. What animates the report is a vision of a participatory, multiracial democracy. Empirically and normatively, this is a tall challenge. Democratic theorists have cautioned against mass political involvement, and few successful multiracial democracies exist. At the very least, we argue, political science education should clarify the values at stake and make a case for democratic purpose, at the same time promoting awareness of the tensions and paradoxes surrounding democracy.

Thirty years after the last APSA-sponsored recommendations on the structure of the undergraduate political science major, new efforts at curriculum reform are under way. As a prelude to how the profession might respond, this article examines how political science departments made undergraduate curriculum changes during the 2010s. Based on a survey of department chairs in 2019-2020 (prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.), one-half of political science programs changed major requirements in the previous five years and 70% made revisions during the decade. Most changes involved adding courses or tracks and modifying course sequences within the prevailing model of subfield distribution. Assuming departments are rational actors seeking to improve student learning and respond effectively to the educational marketplace, various explanations of curriculum change were tested. Structural variables (institutional type and departmental factors) had no significant effects. Nevertheless, the survey revealed learning-based (acquiring disciplinary knowledge, developing intellectual skills) and market-based (concern about enrollments) motivations for change, as well as institutional constraints. Among curricular alternatives to the distribution model, evidence indicated greater support for promoting liberal learning outcomes. Moreover, the civic engagement movement influenced departmental decision-making. However, few programs made curriculum changes related to diversity, equity, or social justice, notable concerns among students and within the discipline.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsE. Fletcher McClellanE. Fletcher McClellan is Professor of Political Science at Elizabethtown College, School of Public Service, One Alpha Drive, Elizabethtown PA 17022, mcclelef@etown.edu. He is a former department chair, dean, and provost at Elizabethtown. His work appears in PS: Political Science & Politics, the Journal of Political Science Education, and the state politics and policy website, Pennsylvania Capital-Star.Correction StatementThis article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Part of a broader movement to promote student engagement in educational activities, high-impact practices (HIPs) are purported to deepen learning through such activities as first-year seminars, internships, community-based learning, capstone experiences, study abroad, and research with faculty. Within political science, HIPs are key to efforts to increase civic and political engagement. The discipline is heavily invested in HIPs as vehicles for research, professional development, curriculum, instruction, and student involvement. Addressing disputes among scholars over the efficacy of HIPs, this study examined the effects of upper-year HIPs on student engagement, learning, and satisfaction at a small, private college in the Northeast, measured by responses from seniors to the National Survey of Student Engagement in 2008-2017. Consistent with the literature, the analysis found that community-based learning and research with faculty related positively with: (1) higher-order, reflective, and integrative learning behaviors, (2) personal and general education competencies, and (3) faculty-student interaction. However, community-based learning had the largest impact on arts and sciences majors. Research with faculty, followed by study abroad and capstone experiences, influenced professional studies majors the most. In addition, capstone experiences and study abroad connected positively to satisfaction with the overall educational experience. Depending on their curriculum goals and program mix, political science departments should consider which kinds of HIPs best fit the undergraduate major.

There is a variety of curricular models for organizing the undergraduate political science major (McClellan 2015). Among them are the traditional distribution model, which exposes students to various subfields in the discipline, and the sequenced-learning framework recommended by the Wahlke Report (Wahlke 1991). Other pathways include civic-engagement education, a recent area of emphasis in the discipline (Matto et al. 2017). Embedded in these and other course arrangements are theories of how students learn and what a curriculum is, its purpose, and its pedagogy. The analysis in this article applies curriculum theory to current and potential models of the political science curriculum, describing the strengths and limits of each structure as a platform for promoting intended learning. The findings suggest that the future political science major should not be a “one-size-fits-all” framework but rather a choice from curricula that best address different learning goals.

Political science is deeply but reluctantly involved in learning outcomes assessment. A 2013 survey reveals that political science departments are using assessment data strategically to satisfy mandates and obtain resources. By applying criteria developed by Frickel and Gross , outcomes assessment in higher education can be understood as an example of a scientific/intellectual movement, providing insight on what strategies political scientists can use to advance their interests. The durability of the assessment movement can be attributed to support from (1) major institutional actors, including governments, accreditors, foundations, and higher education advocacy groups; (2) practitioners who conduct assessment; and (3) researchers involved in the scholarship of assessment, which includes political scientists. However, full acceptance of assessment activities is hampered by competing frames: improvement of teaching and learning (generally supported by academics) and accountability for results (the concern of external stakeholders). Political science departments and the discipline can advocate for their interests more effectively by providing assessment data on student learning for internal purposes and on student postgraduate success for external stakeholders.

There is a variety of curricular models for organizing the undergraduate political science major. Among them are the traditional distribution model, which exposes students to various subfields in the discipline, and the sequenced learning framework recommended by the Wahlke Report. Other structures include the student learning outcomes approach and civic engagement education, the latter a recent area of emphasis in the discipline. Embedded in these and other course arrangements are underlying theories of how students learn, what a curriculum is, its purpose, and its pedagogy. This study applies curriculum theory to current and potential models of the political science curriculum, describing the strengths and limitations of each structure as a platform for promoting intended learning. The findings suggest that the future political science major should not be a one-size-fits-all framework, but rather a choice from curricula that best address different learning goals and objectives, kinds of students, and program needs.

Read the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, or your local media outlet and you will find a steady flow of distressing headlines about the “crisis in higher education.” Horror stories abound of colleges closed, faculty laid off, and liberal arts programs terminated. Families express concern about costs, students worry about debt, and society appears skeptical about whether a college education is worth it. In many of these reports, colleges and universities are to blame for their own failures. Academic programs are disconnected from 21st-century economic needs, critics say. Unnecessary add-ons like rock climbing emporiums inflate costs. Rampant on campuses, political correctness indoctrinates students, stifles dissent, and cocoons them from unpleasant realities. Faculty are more interested in research than teaching. And so on. Approaching from different perspectives, three books about higher education provide needed context. From Charles Dorn, author of For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America, we learn that the sector experiences crises on a regular basis. Colleges and universities must constantly reframe their missions to respond to changes in society, technology, and the economy. Four values guiding institutions emerged: (1) civic mindedness in the early 1800s; (2) practicality around the time of the Civil War; (3) commercialism near the turn to the 20th century; and (4) affluence in the post–World War II period. Using ten case studies from varied educational institutions, Dorn illustrates how new elements of the social environment challenged existing standards, leading to the emergence of a new kind of college or university devoted to a different value. For example,

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

High-impact practices (HIPs) positively impact student learning in underserved populations, yet such groups are less likely to participate in these engaging activities.This paper describes an "embedded" approach in which all students at Elizabethtown College, a small, private institution in Pennsylvania, must choose and successfully complete two of five designated upper-year HIPs or Signature Learning Experiences (SLEs) in the curriculum and cocurriculum.Special attention is given to how expanding access to HIPs became a strategic priority, the process by which the SLE/HIP requirement was adopted, and the early steps institutional leaders took to promote effective implementation of the requirement.

This chapter describes various models for organizing the undergraduate political science major.1 Though debate and discussion of the proper goals and structure of the political science curriculum go back to the founding of the discipline (Ishiyama, Breuning and Lopez 2006), the present review focuses on activities in the USA since the 1980s to reform the major. Curriculum reform efforts in political science have taken place in the midst of reform waves in higher education. The circumstances surrounding the last reform effort sponsored by the American Political Science Association (APSA), the 1991 ‘Wahlke Report’ on liberal education and the political science major (Association of American Colleges 1990; Wahlke 1991), are illustrative. After several years of studies criticizing academic majors as loosely organized collections of distribution requirements and faddish electives (Association of American Colleges 1985; Zemsky 1989), the Association of American Colleges (AAC) called on disciplinary associations to formulate recommendations to ‘strengthen studyindepth’ (Association of American Colleges 1990). In response, APSA appointed a task force with John Wahlke from the University of Arizona as chair. Sharing AAC’s view that depth of understanding cannot be reached ‘merely by cumulative exposure to more and more subject matter’, the authors of the political science report set out to design a model that featured sequential learning, ‘building on blocks of knowledge that lead to more sophisticated understanding . . . leaps of imagination . . . and efforts at synthesis’ (Association of American Colleges 1990, p. 131). Following a similar process, three distinct curricular frameworks in the discipline have developed since the Wahlke Report. The drive for greater student civic and political engagement began with the servicelearning movement of the late 1980s and 1990s (Battistoni and Hudson 1997). Outcomesbased curricula grew as part of the assessment movement, which evolved from external demands for accountability (National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983; National Governors Association 1986) and increased interest in student learning within the academy (Study Group on Conditions of Excellence in Education 1984; McClellan 2009). More recently, the successor to AAC, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), spearheaded the use of ‘highimpact practices’ (HIPs) as a means to broaden and deepen student attainment of ‘essential learning outcomes’ (Kuh 2008). Despite the array of curricular models with high potential for increasing student learning, the political science curriculum at most institutions remains organized by distribution requirements. After describing the four alternatives to the distribution model and their status in the discipline, the final section of this chapter will address the question of why the political science curriculum appears impervious to change.

There are many honors and privileges bestowed on the occupant of this house, but few mean as much to me as the chance to award America's highest civilian medal....This is a chance for me-and for the United States of America-to say thank you to some of the finest citizens of this country (President Barack Obama, Presidential Medal of Freedom Award Ceremony, August 12, 2009).IntroductionThe Presidential Medal of Freedom (PMOF) is the nation's highest civilian honor. The president of the United States, at his sole discretion, bestows the Medal upon individuals for a variety of meritorious contributions. Because presidents act in an unconstrained manner when recognizing Medal recipients, the PMOF provides a unique opportunity to examine the civic contributions that presidents value most when exercising this symbolic unilateral power. Since the Medal's inception in 1963, U.S. presidents have recognized individuals for their contributions in diverse fields, including athletics, art, business, civil rights, literature, and public service, to name but a few.PMOF award ceremonies also serve as a forum in which the president can publicly associate himself with a group of successful and talented individuals. Given that PMOF ceremonies generally receive significant media attention, it is possible that presidents could strategically award PMOFs for a variety of reasons, such as shaping the president's historical legacy, increasing the president's approval rating, solidifying support among existing constituency groups, attracting new constituency groups, or signaling preferences to other political actors.Using an original database of all PMOFs awarded between 1963 and 2013, this study provides the first descriptive and empirical analysis of PMOF award recipients. Among other things, we find that PMOF ceremonies do not increase a president's approval rating. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the overall number of PMOFs awarded annually has increased over time, and that these Medals are often presented to a large group of individuals during a single ceremony, presumably with the goal of garnering media attention. Additionally, we find that Democratic and Republican presidents differ in terms of what achievements they choose to recognize when awarding a PMOF. Partisan differences are also evident when it comes to awarding PMOFs to racial minorities: Democrats recognize these individuals significantly more often than Republicans. However, we find no statistically significant difference in the rate at which Democratic and Republican presidents award the Medal to women.We begin this study by discussing the history of the PMOF and its predecessor, the Medal of Freedom, and the award's symbolic and political significance as a unilateral exercise of presidential power. After detailing the methods used to construct our original dataset of PMOF recipients and ceremonies from 1963-2013, we then present and evaluate empirical evidence designed to address several key questions about the awarding of PMOFs. Finally, we conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and offer insights regarding the PMOF's significance in contemporary American politics.Inception of the Presidential Medal of FreedomThe PMOF's history begins with its predecessor medal, the Medal of Freedom (MOF). President Harry S. Truman established the MOF on July 6, 1945, with Executive Order 9586. According to the executive order, the MOF sought to recognize:...any person ...who, on or after December 7, 1941, has performed a meritorious act or service which has aided the United States in the prosecution of a war against an enemy or enemies...(or) has similarly aided any nation engaged with the United States in the prosecution of a war against a common enemy or enemies (Executive Order 9586).President Truman's executive order limited the MOF to 1) contributions to national security performed outside the continental United States, 2) individuals for which another federal medal was inappropriate, and 3) individuals not serving in the military. …

Civic education and involvement have been traditional emphases of political science since the beginning of the discipline. However, the political science curriculum has not always privileged civic involvement, focusing instead on content knowledge and the development of intellectual skills (Ishiyama, Breuning, and Lopez 2006). Interest in promoting active citizenship was rekindled in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the rise of the service-learning movement and the establishment of national service programs. The cause acquired greater urgency as studies showed declining social capital with each new generation, decreasing youth voting turnout through 2000, and increasing political distrust. Political scientists responded with more service-learning activities on campuses (Battistoni and Hudson 1997) and the formation of an APSA task force on civic education in 1996. Still, doubts persisted about the effectiveness of civic education efforts. Surveys indicated that political interest and activity among young adults dropped despite increased volunteer service activities. Some studies revealed that students preferred community service to political participation as a way to solve social problems. As a result, attention turned to efforts to promote political, as opposed to civic, engagement at the start of the new millennium. Over a decade later, optimism in political science about civic involvement has returned. To understand this trend, there is no better source than the 2013 APSA compilation, Teaching Civic Engagement: From Student to Active Citizen. Edited by Alison Rios Millett McCartney, Elizabeth Bennion, and Dick Simpson, the volume provides valuable theoretical and practical information for faculty members seeking ways to move students beyond voluntarism to genuine engagement in the community. Furthermore, a conclusive case is made for the value of political engagement as a means of promoting lifelong active citizenship. Teaching Civic Engagement provides many examples of how service-learning, internships, simulations and problem-based learning can be used to build the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and experiences needed for effective citizenship. As