Introduction
In 1996, the Eisenhower Leadership Group stated the problem of civic disengagement, it proclaimed that democracy was at risk and the schools have to lead:
“Every democracy requires a large number of citizens willing and able to make a difference”
(Eisenhower Leadership Group 1996)
This elite group composed of the Center for Political Leadership and Participation of the University of Maryland, the Leadership Education Project of the John F. School of Government at Harvard University and the Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling Psychology of Washington State University. After nine years, the generation of civic engagement in the United States is still a challenge.
The main assumption is that in a democratic education, individuals acquire various outcomes, such as, moral values, civic concepts and social skills. This leads to the belief that children will lead a socially responsible life which means these individuals have not only acquired civic awareness but have built on social capital. Thus becoming civically engaged which guides the individual to perform a collective action in society. The effect on this social integration is building relationships between community and government which produce governance.
Finally, the democratic education makes students more civically aware as they grow up, which results in good governance, Consequently, it creates a more civically engaged human being defined as citizen, who not only feels but acts like an individual within a society thinking similarly about civic issues.
Another assumption is that there are certain dimensions in marketing a citizen, this means the producing individuals with not only democratic characteristics but with collective dimensions. What is the promotion of a good citizenship? In order to market a citizen it has to have a branding and positioning strategy, a visionary leadership. Wilma Mankiller, Chief of the Cherokee Nation, stated that “I contend that no prophet is come along and save America. Visionary leadership is going to come along in little tiny places all over the nation, and everyone is responsible for providing it.” (Eisenhower Leadership Group 1996) So the questions that are directed are: where does the civic engagement start? In the family or in school, either in elementary education or high school, with parent participation or limited parent participation? Other questions are: What is the teachers and parents role? Does the community and local government have any responsibility is promoting a good citizenship?
The literature examined ranges from scholarly journals, books, project reports and internet sources from ten years ago. Although there are a couple of references that are before this period, the terms used for civic engagement are numerous, used interchangeably with other processes, such as political participation, political consciousness, civic responsibility, civic communion, community service, social mobilization, and others. Some sources derive from Great Britain and Canada, whose governments have the same concern as the United States, the lack of civic engagement in society. This paper aims to establish a general discussion on the issues concerning civic engagement and its importance in marketing a citizen.
The state of being a citizen or citizenship has many questions and topics which can be debated from many points of views. For instance, through the revision of the literature, the issues that are intrinsically to civic engagement and to marketing a citizen is: civic education and citizenship.
The main discussion is the interrelationships between democracy, education and schools, the central proposition is that “American Democracy” is still the best way to achieve “freedom and the betterment of human beings”. (Soder 1996) Robert Putnam in Making Democracy Work states that In order to achieve democracy, citizens must be “educated in moral and political responsibilities”, in addition to previously established conditions such as: “trust, exchange and social capital”.(Putnam 1993) The issue debated is over if schools and teachers should be responsible for the teachings of the right and responsibilities of a citizen. The questions that arise are: Is this enough to be civically engaged in a community? At what age does this civic education begin, either elementary or in high school?
The rationale for the interrelationships between democracy, education and the schools come from different perspectives. The democratic education that Mary Catherine Bateson describes in her article Democracy, Ecology and Participation is basically placing schools inside a social ecological framework where children have a place in the democratic process. (Soder 1996)
The democratic education contributes so children will acquire citizenry competence and engagement to accomplish the democratic ideal of the “pursuit of justice”.(Macedo and Tamir 2002) The democratic ideals and the history of the “founding fathers” is still in American Society and everyone agrees that their government is democratic thus this association can be troublesome since nobody can really pinpoint the characteristics of living in a democratic state.(Hoffert 2001) The general meaning is this state is the authority and the power come from the people (demos), and is justified by their approval. These choices for liberty and justice must be taught in schools so it does not only become temporal or spiritual but also social and political.(Hoffert 2001)
Many scholars uphold the point of revising how democratic education have changed during the years idea, that is not say that most go into reviewing theories in democracy which should not be the case and that is not the issue. The issue is to frame democracy concepts and ideals in the context relevant on how is the “peoples” living timeframe. Alexis de Tocqueville implied that the pursuit of a democratic state is when the democratic concepts are “rightly understood”.(Hoffert 2001)
Other scholars have another point of view and feel threatened that religion will be mixed with this democratic education, contesting the freedom of religion should not be mixed in the school system, for example, the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that the salute of the flag and allegiance might be infringing on the Fourteenth amendment in freedom of religion in the case of West Virginia State Board Of Education V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 319 U.S. 624. The Jehova Witness parents were against their children saluting the flag because in “their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.' They consider that the flag is an 'image' within this command. For this reason they refuse to salute it.” (Thomson Legal and Regulatory 1943)
On the other hand, critics of American school system criticize how there is a “manipulation of regime symbols” in order to indoctrinate students to become more competitive in a free market and be more up to par in “consumer economics, free enterprise, and the virtues of the capitalist system”. The comparison is made between a factory and the schools.(Lea 1982)
In any case, the vestiges of the anti-communist sentiments have filtered into the American school system and to market a citizen with civic awareness and a national political consciousness was left aside. (Lea 1982) These reactions were definitely seen in the 1960’s and 1970’s which were characterized by the Cold War years and the recession years of the 1980’s, where much of the curriculum development geared toward career and trade skills.(Lea 1982)
The 1990’s were marked by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 which opened a new dimension on the nation’s provision for adequate living conditions especially for children. One of the main preambles is "Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,"(United Nations General Assembly 1989)
Paradoxically, up to mid 2003, two countries had not ratified it; the United States was one of them. Even though the United States is one of the security council members and one the highest donors to the United Nations Fund, the United States usually takes its time in ratifying international resolutions.(UNICEF 2005) Nevertheless, the United States does not only have the international pressure to revise its civic education to make a school system more equitable, free, tolerant, and socially cohesive.
The revival of civic education should “save” the democratic spirit in the American school system. It should remind the youngsters that they have rights and responsibilities to accomplish “a government for and by the people”. (Eisenhower Leadership Group 1996) These youngsters need to also a value system to conduct their decision making and solve their problems, Ian Wright believes that children should begin to have civic education in elementary school. Wright is very practical in educating children with not only with classroom activities but also in the school and family environments. This moral reasoning in a democratic state is important; the individual must weigh the importance of “liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and self-respect”. (Wright 1993)
On the other hand, some education scholars believe that “higher education as an agent of democracy” with an enhance curricula and service learning activities. (Boyte and Kari 2000) Moreover, in 2005 David Caputo questions how higher education can promote civic engagement, some options is a curriculum in ethics and individual responsibility, along with community service or internships. He also exposes the alternative of in class and out of classroom experiences such as working in a campaign or in an advocacy group. A third alternative which he prefers is to ask the specific outcome of the civic engagement and then customize the program. For example, Caputo asks the questions what is the outcome, a citizen with increased political and social awareness with a life of advocacy and engagement, or, a citizen with a “better understanding of his or her world”, or, citizen with in-class and external experiences with skills in public policy decision making. (Caputo 2005)
The general consensus is there is a need for civic education in the American School System, Parents and Teachers and the community must be responsible for this and must have at least a minimum of civic skills.(CIRCLE) The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement has various working papers and articles that attempt to decipher the measurement of civic engagement. For example, the civic indicators which can youth civic engagement are the following: community solving, regular volunterring for non-electoral organizations, active membership in a group or association, participation in fund raising run/walk/ride. (CIRCLE)
Similarly in civic skills include communication skills, knowledge of political systems and the ability to critically think about civic and political life. The interesting point is that CIRCLE measure since the elementary school age children at a national level.
Another interesting project carried out by CIRCLE is Kids Voting USA, measuring a three year period the interactive civic curriculum taught during elections campaign in 2002. The families were form Arizona, Colorado and Florida, the variable measurements were in exposure in voting, curriculum influence in civic involvement indicators, and demographics variables. There were surveys handed to juniors and seniors in high school, the questionnaires were self reported so the bias and validity can be critical to evaluate civic intentions and behaviors.(McDevitt and Kiousis 2004)
There is also the Campaign for the Mission of Schools, its main goal is to promote civic learning in schools, they believe its the “most effective way to prepare America's young people for informed and active participation in a healthy representative democracy”. (Civic Mission 2004)
Citizenship
The arguments exchanged in the topic of citizenship are mainly the description of the state of being a citizen fully born with rights and responsibilities, the self determination of a citizen (identity) and how much social capital is vested to have citizenship and the civic responsibility.
Astin characterizes of the “citizenship talents” with “empathy, self-understanding, honesty, responsibility and the ability to work collaboratively”.(Astin 2000) He argues that one must weigh the civic notions and emotional talents over the intelligence scores. Further he asserts that asserts that assessment should have a more “value added” approach to what the student is learning and how their development is over time. (Astin 2000)
In an interesting article by Harry Boyte and Nancy Kari attempts not only to define citizenship but also to state where it comes from, such as:
1.Member of communities with rights that choose leaders through elections in a representative political system. This is the traditional view of democracy.
2.Members of communities sharing same values and “responsible to each other and for their community”. This is comes from “communitarian philosophy and civic society teachings.
3. “Public Problem solvers and co-producers of public goods”. This description is from the “commonwealth” in American history, “the work-centered philosophy of democracy.”
(Boyte and Kari 2000)
The first two descriptions are what political scientists the “liberal view” of political theory. This are more centered to “division of powers, how a bill becomes law, how to vote, how to make one’s views known to legislatives, and the equal distribution of goods and services”.(Boyte and Kari 2000)
The third description of citizenship as the “commonwealth or public works tradition” is linked to work, and the building of the “commons”. In this sense, Boyte and Kari relate citizenship is to public work, as the “producers of public goods”, and the process of creating communities and stakeholders in the country. This type of citizenship was what Abraham Lincoln promoted as an ideal democratic government and permeated through the 1940’s. (Boyte and Kari 2000)
The building of the commons in the 1930’s and 1940’s was exemplified when citizens did community work for the sake of the all members of the community; the workers would create goods and implemented projects of public benefit as the spirit of civic identity.(Boyte and Kari 2000)
This last perspective on citizenship is what catalyzes the civic effort and collaborative problem solving, nowadays citizens solve their own individual problems, disengaged from a civic identity for their community or for public life, unwilling to initiate a collective problem solving scheme to improve a policy, changed form “producers” to “consumers” of democracy. (Boyte and Kari 2000)
The ambiguity of the meaning citizenship will continue for some years. (Davies, Gregory et al. 1999) Nevertheless the American Democracy still promotes that the individual owes civic duty to society, not because it was a law but traditionally the American citizen has been guardian of their rights and responsibilities through public life. What guides the regulations of civic engagement?
In his article “Bowling Alone: America’s Decline of Social Capital”, Robert D Putnam declares that the lack of civic engagement is a decline of social capital, which he defines by the “features of social organization such as social networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”.(Putnam 1995) He aims to emphasize that the rich and complex network of social integration in a community produces civic engagement which influence the American citizen’s public life.(Putnam 1995) Putnam prefers to investigate more about the decreasing trends of civic engagement. He starts by talking about the voter turnout since 1990 has decline, which he recalls is the “simplest act of citizenship” not only in national levels but also in state and local levels. He mentions Roper Organization that sampled at national level over the last 20 years and found out that less people “attended a public meeting on town or public affairs” in 1973 the results were 22 percent and in1993 fell to 13 percent. (Putnam 1995)
The declining trend is similar in other indicators of political participation, so in the last two decades American has been more disengaged “from the affairs of their communities”. An interesting point Putnam makes is that during these same decades the “average levels of education have risen” which is a good predictor for political participation.(Putnam 1995) Organizational membership is another indicator for civic engagement, Putnam states that there is a decline in joining Church-related groups and labor unions plus an alarming fact is that the Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA) has had a drastic decline in the last decade. PTA has been important in the production of social capital with the parent involvement in the educational system; similar declines are in other civic organizations and fraternal organizations.
On the other hand, the increasing number of non-traditional organizations such as the Sierra Club (environmental organizations), feminist groups, the retired groups (American Association of Retired Persons), etc. But then these last organizations does not produce social trust a requirement for social capital, members of these organizations do not connect or never attend meetings, just pay dues and receive newsletters.
Also the self –help small groups organized around a certain topic like Alcoholics Anonymous or book discussions which do not offer social connectedness to the community. (Putnam 1995) He implies that social connectedness and civic engagement are forms of social capital, and he exposes four possible explanations for its “erosion” in American society:
1.The movement of women into the labor force
2.Mobility of residence
3.Demographic transformation
4. Technological transformation of leisure
(Putnam 1995)
In a later article Putnam mentions education is an intrinsic part of civic engagement, he declares the “four years of education between 14 and 18 years have ten times more impact on trust and membership than the first four years of formal education” this includes men and women, different races and generations. (Putnam 1996) He does not explain the reason for the contradiction. He concludes that there is “a mystery” in the effect of education quality of the education in the US. His main contribution is the linkage between social connectedness, civic engagement and social capital.
Alejandro Portes, a distinguished sociologist, disagrees on Putnam’s association of social capital to civic engagement at a community level. Portes argues that social capital since its inception had an individual level meaning. In his article Social Capital: Its Origins and Application in Modern Sociology, Portes discusses definitions from Bourdieu, Loury , Coleman, Baker, Schiff and Burt. Even though there are differences, it seems that there is an agreement that social capital means “ability of actors to secure benefits by virtues of membership in social networks or other social structures”. (Portes 1998)
Furthermore, he wants to prove that the uses can differ depending on the character of social capital. He disagrees with Putnam’s association of social capital to the “level of ‘civicness’ in communities” also his treatment of social capital as “logical circularity”. Portes declares that Putnam analysis of social capital linked with communities rather than an individual level is a “simultaneously a cause and effect”. Putnam should separate the “definition of the concept, theoretically and empirically” from its alledged effects and also controlling other factors that might be affecting the social capital. (Portes 1998)
A reasonable commentary that Portes makes to Putnam argument is in its ”elitist stance” to alleging responsibility to the decline of social capital on “leisure behavior of the masses, rather than on the economic and political changes” brought upon by the “corporate and governmental” entities.(Portes 1998)
A simple definition of citizenship is “state of being vested the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen who is a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection” (Stein 2003). Therefore it can be interpreted that citizenship means that one is already born with rights, privileges and duties of a person that is a member of a nation, also that person owes a sense of duty of a government.
In a American society we must be “producers of democracy not simply its consumers”, in order to be civically engaged, a citizen feels part of a community and identifies with the same civic values and as an individual shares the problem solving as a collective action.(Boyte and Kari 2000)
In Canada, Troy D. Glover researches how “citizenship is associated with active citizen participation at a community center” in Ontario, Canada. The researcher designs the study with a social constructionist framework , a complex theoretical technique which intents to gather information from social actors the recognition, production and reproduction of ‘social actions and how they come to share an intersubjective understanding of specific life circumstances’. (Glover 2004)
The assumptions are that members in a community will construct interpretation in a collective way and will also share “understandings, social practices, and language”. Another assumption is that members of the community “invent concepts, models, and schemes to make sense of their lived experiences”.(Glover 2004) The last assumption was that “social constructions, as ‘negotiated’ understandings, can take a variety of forms”, which it can be very ambiguous in a qualitative study of this kind. The site is a “at-risk” community in southwestern Ontario, Canada and was chosen because it worked under a community development format, the population was 120000 inhabitants, urban, high unemployment, mostly single parents, a large minority representation and low income level. The sample size of this qualitative study is extremely questionable; only seven individuals were interviewed by the researcher. The researcher does state that the findings can only be “transferable” to theory but not to the population. (Glover 2004) The highlight of this study is the potential psychological associations between communal, responsibility and participation “dimensions of citizenship” , as shown in the following figure:
(Glover 2004)
Glover does state that the measurement and empirical studies are needed to analyze and evaluate the associations between dimensions. In all, the participants felt the sense of community (identity), and the involvement progressed in responsibility for the community which was a motivation to be more participatory problem solving thus changing behavior as a citizen with the rest of the community. (Glover 2004)
The connection between social capital and citizenship can be explained by how an individual’s enables citizens to collaborate to have collective effect. Citizens living in a community with high levels of social capital there is a high level of social trust and value the solidarity and equity. Likewise in communities with low social capital, there are low levels of trust between members.(Berkman and Kawachi 2000) In a study, Berkman and Kennedy measured the correlation between indicators of social capital and political participation like voting, for example in the following figure demonstrate the high levels if distrust with the low percentage of voter turnout in 1992. (Berkman and Kawachi 2000)
The ways that social capital influences political participation and government performance can be demonstrated in the Civic Voluntary Model Berkman and Kawachi denotes that even if they are not doing political activism the members can acquire skills to integrate and influence in a political activity.(Berkman and Kawachi 2000)
In the late 1870’s, Emile Durkheim the French sociologist, had the foresight to relate suicide rates with social integration that is attachment and regulation in society. Suicide is mainly an individual decision. This does not take in consideration the income inequality that might affect a community, but after a tragedy or social disorder recuperate because of the communities’ integration and networks of friends and kinship. He had been studying how the effects of the environment should not be studied in an individual manner. There are collective norms and value system which influence the community integration after a sudden change in their lives.
Durkheim dedicated much of his time in suicides, the “true” ones from the accidental ones, he defined them as "the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result" (1982, p. 110 [excerpt from Suicide]).
He ran some studies in countries, and collecting their suicide rates which demonstrated that there was a communal trend on suicide rates. His theories were based that if there had been a previous change in social conditions which caused those suicides rates to increase. He presumed that the social cohesion had two forms of integration: the attachment and regulation. (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000)
The “attachment” is when an individual is bonded with other member of his community, in the “regulation” case is when an individual is mandated by the communities’ values, norms. (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000)
Suicide is a reflection of the conditions of the community as a whole, not the sum of an individual or a set of individuals.. As Durkheim studied social causes and suicide, he concluded also social structural forces that had low levels of social integration such as unmarried men or Protestant church members there was a high level of suicides, also in societies where there was a acute level of domestic disorder for example Eastern Europe at one time.
Durkheim’s main idea in his theory is that the community had build up on a social cohesion previous the suicide, groups in the community have connected and created bonding in solidarity, norms, values, beliefs, (reciprocity) which is referred as part of the community’s social capital. (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000) He claims that through “mutual moral support, which instead of throwing the individual on his own resources, leads him to share in the collective energy and supports his own when exhausted. “ (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000)
Berkman and Kawachi agrees with Durkheim that the challenge is to know how social capital is created and how the cohesion is built up or strengthen, and that is what the study does not show. But then the objective of the study was an example of how “the power of social capital lies in its potential ability to explain an array of collective outcomes that directly influence well-being.” (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000)
The linkages between citizenship, identity and social capital can be visually shown in the following diagram:
The community is territorial, it does have to have a physical description: urban or rural, metropolitan or suburbs, local, state, national, etc. Similarly, community gives a sense of “relational” identity meaning “a characteristic of human relationships rather than existing in a bounded or defined group” or social networks.(Procter 2005)
The perspective of community with identity must have the social cohesion and integration with the social capital with its respective norms and trust within their membership.(Putnam 1995) The citizenship is the state where the members of the community or citizens recognize they have duties and responsibilities; they also have rights and privileges to participate at different levels of the democratic state. This civic engagement has internal and external actions that are drivers to produce and sell citizens: civic education and governance.
David Procter’s Civic Communion, talks about a community performing civic engagement “by the bond of citizenry around social and political structures….of specific locale”.(Procter 2005)
Conclusion
The literature searched for civic engagement in particular was a challenge to find, books and articles are in press and planned to be out by 2006. In addition studies with empirical data are very deficient, for example, experimental study designs on measurement of civic engagement or civic education. Nevertheless, the sources of information on political theories on democracy are abundant.
There are gaps for research in marketing a citizen which are identified, such as, political efficacy, governance, social mobilization, community participation, social capital, etc.
In conclusion, civic engagement must have adequate methods and techniques of persuasion that strengthens community participation in various policy arenas. In addition, the process of civic engagement stabilizes the governance where the stakeholders (people, government, community) identify their interests and create collective action for a more social responsible attitude. The correlation of marketing and society has underlying themes associated in marketing a citizen and the challenge is to be rather less theoretical and more practical and empirical.
References
Astin, A. W. (2000). The Civic Challenge of Education the Underprepared Student. Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. T. Ehrlich. Phoenix, Oryx Press.
Berkman, L. F. and I. Kawachi (2000). Social Epidemiology. New York, Oxford Press.
Boyte, H. C. and N. N. Kari (2000). Renewing the Democratic Spirit in American Colleges and Universities: Higher Education as Public Work. Civic Responsibility and Higher Education
T. Ehrlich. Phoenix, Oryx Press.
Caputo, D. A. (2005). "A Campus View:Civic engagement and the higher education community." National Civic Review Summer(5): 3-8.
CIRCLE. "The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement CIRCLE." from http://www.civicyouth.org/
Civic Mission. (2004). "Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools." Retrieved October 7, 2005, 2005, from http://www.civicmissionofschools.org/.
Davies, I., I. Gregory, et al. (1999). Good Citizenship and Educational Provision. London and New York, Falmer Press.
Eisenhower Leadership Group (1996). Democracy at risk:how schools can lead. College Park, Center for Political Leadership and Participation, University of Maryland: 1-11.
Glover, T. D. (2004). "The 'Community' Center and the Social Construction of Citizenship." Leisure Sciences 26(1): 63-83.
Hoffert, R. W. (2001). Education in Political Democracy. Developing Democratic Character in the Young. R. Soder, J. I. Goodlad and T. J. McMannon. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.
Lea, J. F. (1982). Political Conciousness and American Democracy. Jackson, University Press of Mississippi.
Macedo, S. and Y. Tamir, Eds. (2002). Moral and Political Education. New York, New York University Press.
McDevitt, M. and S. Kiousis (2004). Education for Deliberative Democracy: The long term influence of Kids Voting USA. Circle Working Paper 22. Boulder: 2-36.
Portes, A. (1998). "Social Capital:Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.
Procter, D. E. (2005). Civic Communion:The Rhetoric of Community Building. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work:Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). "Bowling alone: America's declining social capital." Current(373): 3.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). "Bowling Alone:America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (1996). "Strange Disappearance of Civic America." The American Prospect(Winter): 34-44.
Soder, R., Ed. (1996). Democracy,education,and the schools. Jossey-Bass Education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc.,Publishers.
Stein, J., Ed. (2003). The Random House Dictionary of the English Language New York, Random House Inc.
Thomson Legal and Regulatory. (1943). "WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 319 U.S. 624
" Retrieved October 8,2005, 2005, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624.
UNICEF. (2005). "The Convention on the Rights of the Child." Retrieved October 8, 2005, from http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm.
United Nations General Assembly (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child-U.N. General Assembly-Document A/RES/44/25 (12 December 1989) with Annex Convention on the Rights of the Child
U.N. General Assembly
Wright, I. (1993). "Civic Education is values education." Social Studies Jul/Aug 93 84(4): 149-153.
No comments:
Post a Comment