civic education critical thinking

The need for civic education in 21st-century schools

Download the full report

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

Rebecca winthrop rebecca winthrop director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @rebeccawinthrop.

June 4, 2020

15 min read

Americans’ participation in civic life is essential to sustaining our democratic form of government. Without it, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not last. Of increasing concern to many is the declining levels of civic engagement across the country, a trend that started several decades ago. Today, we see evidence of this in the limited civic knowledge of the American public, 1 in 4 of whom, according to a 2016 survey led by Annenberg Public Policy Center, are unable to name the three branches of government. It is not only knowledge about how the government works that is lacking—confidence in our leadership is also extremely low. According to the Pew Research Center , which tracks public trust in government, as of March 2019, only an unnerving 17 percent trust the government in Washington to do the right thing. We also see this lack of engagement in civic behaviors, with Americans’ reduced participation in community organizations and lackluster participation in elections , especially among young voters. 1

Many reasons undoubtedly contribute to this decline in civic engagement: from political dysfunction to an actively polarized media to the growing mobility of Americans and even the technological transformation of leisure , as posited by Robert D. Putnam. Of particular concern is the rise of what Matthew N. Atwell, John Bridgeland, and Peter Levine call “civic deserts,” namely places where there are few to no opportunities for people to “meet, discuss issues, or address problems.” They estimate that 60 percent of all rural youth live in civic deserts along with 30 percent of urban and suburban Americans. Given the decline of participation in religious organizations and unions, which a large proportion of Americans consistently engaged in over the course of the 20th century, it is clear that new forms of civic networks are needed in communities.

As one of the few social institutions present in virtually every community across America, schools can and should play an important role in catalyzing increased civic engagement. They can do this by helping young people develop and practice the knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors needed to participate in civic life. Schools can also directly provide opportunities for civic engagement as a local institution that can connect young and old people alike across the community. To do this, civic learning needs to be part and parcel of the current movement across many schools in America to equip young people with 21st-century skills.

To date however, civic education experts argue that civic learning is on the margins of young people’s school experience. The 2018 Brown Center Report on American Education examined the status of civic education and found that while reading and math scores have improved in recent years, there has not been the commensurate increase in eighth grade civics knowledge. While 42 states and the District of Columbia require at least one course related to civics, few states prioritize the range of strategies, such as service learning which is only included in the standards for 11 states, that is required for an effective civic education experience. The study also found that high school social studies teachers are some of the least supported teachers in schools and report teaching larger numbers of students and taking on more non-teaching responsibilities like coaching school sports than other teachers. Student experience reinforces this view that civic learning is not a central concern of schools. Seventy percent of 12th graders say they have never written a letter to give an opinion or solve a problem and 30 percent say they have never taken part in a debate—all important parts of a quality civic learning.

The origins of civic education

The fact that children today across the country wake up in the morning and go to school five days a week for most of the year has everything to do with civic education. The idea of a shared school experience where all young people in America receive a standard quality education is inextricably linked to the development of the United States as a national entity and the development of citizens who had the skills and knowledge to engage in a democracy.

In the early 1800s, as the country struggled to navigate what it meant to be a democratic republic, school as we know it did not exist as a distinguishing feature of childhood. Even almost midway into the century—in 1840—only 40 percent of the population ages 5 to 19 attended school. 2 For those who did attend, what they learned while at school was widely variable depending on the institution they attended and the instructor they had. Several education leaders began advocating for a more cohesive school system, one in which all young people could attend and receive similar instruction regardless of economic status, institution, or location. Chief among these leaders was Horace Mann, often referred to as the “father of American education,” who argued that free, standardized, and universal schooling was essential to the grand American experiment of self-governance. In an 1848 report he wrote: “It may be an easy thing to make a Republic; but it is a very laborious thing to make Republicans; and woe to the republic that rests upon no better foundations than ignorance, selfishness, and passion.”

The rise of reading, math, and science

The Common Schools Movement that Mann helped establish and design was the foundation of our current American education system. Despite the fact that the core of our education system was built upon the belief that schooling institutions have a central role to play in preparing American youth to be civically engaged, this goal has been pushed to the margins over time as other educational objectives have moved to the forefront. Reading, math, and science have always been essential elements of a child’s educational experience, but many educationalists argue that these subjects were elevated above all others after the country’s “Sputnik moment.” In 1957, the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik, the first space satellite, made waves across the U.S. as Americans perceived they were falling behind academically and scientifically. A wave of reforms including in math, science, and engineering education followed. Improving students poor reading and math skills received particular attention over the last several decades including in President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. A focus on ensuring American students get strong STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) skills continues to be an ongoing concern, as highlighted by President Obama’s 2013 Educate to Innovate plan focused on improving American students performance in STEM subjects.

The case for incorporating 21st-century skills

Civic learning experts, however, are not the only ones concerned about the perceived narrow focus on reading, math, and science in American schools. In recent years, there has been a growing movement for schools to help students develop “21st-century skills” alongside academic competencies, driven in large part by frequent reports of employers unsatisfied with the skills of recent school graduates. Business leaders point out that they not only need employees who are smart and competent in math and reading and writing, they also need people who can lead teams, communicate effectively to partners, come up with new ways to solve problems, and effectively navigate an increasingly digital world. With the rise of automation , there is an increasing premium on non-routine and higher order thinking skills across both blue collar and white collar jobs. A recent study of trends in the U.S. labor market shows that social skills that are increasingly in demand 3 and many employers are struggling to find people with the sets of skills they need.

Advances in the science of learning have bolstered the 21st-century skills movement. Learning scientists argue that young people master math, reading, and science much better if they have an educational experience that develops their social and emotional learning competencies—like self-awareness and relationship skills which are the foundation of later workplace skills—and puts academic learning in a larger, more meaningful context. One framework, among many, that articulates the breadth of skills and competencies young people need to succeed in a fast-changing world comes from learning scientists Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and Roberta Golinkoff. Their “6 Cs” framework , a variation on the prior “4 Cs” framework, is widely used and argues that schools should focus on helping young people develop not just academically, but as people. As all learning is fundamentally social, students must learn to collaborate , laying an important foundation for communication —an essential prerequisite for mastering the academic content in school that provides the specific topics around which students can practice critical thinking and creative innovation , and which ultimately will help develop the confidence to take risks and iterate on failures.

This movement for 21st-century skills has powerful allies and growing momentum even while the movement itself is comprised of an eclectic collection of organizations spread across the country with a wide range of interests and multiple missions for their work. However, a central thread is that the standardized approach to education, the legacy of Horace Mann’s Common Schools movement, is holding back student learning. Teacher-led instruction, for example, will never be sufficient for helping students learn to collaborate with each other or create new things. Active and experiential learning is required, which is harder to standardize as the specifics must be adapted to the particular communities and learners.

Civic learning as an essential 21st-century skill

This focus on mastering academic subjects through a teaching and learning approach that develops 21st-century skills is important but brings with it a worldview that focuses on the development of the individual child to the exclusion of the political. After all, one could argue that the leaders of the terrorist organization ISIS display excellence in key 21st-century skills such as collaboration, creativity, confidence, and navigating the digital world. Their ability to work together to bring in new recruits, largely through on-line strategies, and pull off terrorist attacks with relatively limited resources takes a great deal of ingenuity, teamwork, perseverance, and problem solving. Of course, the goals of Islamic extremists and their methods of inflicting violence on civilians are morally unacceptable in almost any corner of the globe, but creative innovation they have in abundance.

What the 21st-century skills movement is missing is an explicit focus on social values. Schools always impart values, whether intentionally or not. From the content in the curriculum to the language of instruction to the way in which teachers interact with students, ideas around what is good and what is bad are constantly being modeled and taught. While a number of competencies that are regularly included in 21st-century skills frameworks, like the ability to work with others, have implicit values such as respect for others’ perspectives, they do not explicitly impart strong norms and values about society. Of course, as long as there has been public education there has been heated debate about whose values should be privileged, especially in relation to deeply held religious and cultural beliefs. From the teaching of evolution and creationism to transgender bathrooms, debates on values in public schools can be contentious.

In a democracy, however, the values that are at the core of civic learning are different. They are foundational to helping young people develop the dispositions needed to actively engage in civic life and maintain the norms by which Americans debate and decide their differences. The very nature of developing and sustaining a social norm means that a shared or common experience across all schools is needed. While civic learning has been essential throughout American history, in this age of growing polarization and rising civic deserts, it should be considered an essential component of a 21st-century education.

Civic learning defined

The term civic learning evokes for most Americans their high school civics class in which they learned about the U.S. Constitution, the three branches of government, and how a bill becomes a law. This knowledge and information is essential—after all how can young people be expected to actively participate in democracy if they are unaware of the basic rules of the game?—but it is by no means sufficient. There is an emerging consensus across the many scholars and organizations that work on civic learning that imparting knowledge must be paired with developing civic attitudes and behaviors. For example, CivXNow , a bipartisan coalition of over one hundred actors including academic and research institutions, learning providers, and philanthropic organizations, argues that civic education must include a focus on:

Civic knowledge and skills: where youth gain an understanding of the processes of government, prevalent political ideologies, civic and constitutional rights, and the history and heritage of the above.
Civic values and dispositions: where youth gain an appreciation for civil discourse, free speech, and engaging with those whose perspectives differ from their own.
Civic behaviors: where students develop the civic agency and confidence to vote, volunteer, attend public meetings, and engage with their communities.

There is also emerging evidence suggesting a correlation between high quality civic learning programs and increased civic engagement from students. As the 2011 Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools report highlights, students who receive high quality civic education are more likely to “understand public issues, view political engagement as a means of addressing communal challenges, and participate in civic activities.” The outcomes are equally as influential on civic equality, as there is evidence to suggest that poor, minority, rural, and urban students who receive high-quality civics education perform better than their counterparts.

Civic learning delivered

The crucial question is how to deliver high-quality civic learning across American schools. Researchers in civic learning have reviewed a wide range of approaches and the evidence surrounding their effectiveness. Experts identified a menu of six specific approaches , which was later updated to ten, that if implemented well has been demonstrated to advance civic learning. These range from teaching young people about civics to creating learning opportunities for practicing civic behaviors.

Classroom instruction, including discussing current events and developing media literacy skills, is needed for developing civic knowledge and skills, whether it is delivered as a stand-alone course or lessons integrated into other subjects. Many in the civics education community are advocating for more time devoted to civics from the elementary grades through high school and the corresponding teacher professional development and support required to make this a reality.

However, for developing civic dispositions, values, and behaviors, the promising practices identified by the civic learning experts are very similar to those required to develop 21st-century skills in part because many of the competencies in question are essentially the same. For example, strong communication skills contribute to the ability of students to speak up at meetings and strong collaboration skills enable them to effectively work with others in their community. Indeed, the Center for Educational Equity at Teachers College notes that “civic and political values are a subset of the values that young people should learn, and there are no sharp lines separating the civic/political domain from others.”

Hence, the range of teaching and learning experiences needed to develop civic behaviors and needed for 21st-century skills are similar. They include experiential learning approaches, such as service learning where students work on a community project alongside organizations or extracurricular activities where students learn to work together in teams. Experiential learning can also include simulations of democratic procedures or, better yet, direct engagement in school governance and school climate initiatives. In communities where there is limited opportunities for civic engagement, schools can themselves model civic values by becoming the place where community members gather and connect with each other.

Uniting the 21st-century skills and civic learning movements

A movement for 21st-century skills that does not include in a meaningful way the cultivation of democratic values is incomplete and will not prepare young people to thrive in today’s world. Given what is at stake in terms of civic engagement in America, uniting the powerful push for 21st-century skills with the less well-resourced but equally important movement for civic learning could prove to be an important strategy for helping schools fill the civic desert vacuum and renew the social norms that underpin our democratic form of government. In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “Civic education, like all education, is a continuing enterprise and conversation. Each generation has an obligation to pass on to the next, not only a fully functioning government responsive to the needs of the people, but the tools to understand and improve it.”

Civic Education

Civic education, whenever and however undertaken, prepares people of a country, especially the young, to carry out their roles as citizens. Civic education is, therefore, political education or, as Amy Gutmann describes it, “the cultivation of the virtues, knowledge, and skills necessary for political participation” (1987, 287). Of course, in some regimes political participation and therefore civic education can be limited or even negligible.

Though commonly associated with schooling, civic education is not the exclusive domain of schools. A rightly famous rendition of this idea is Tocqueville's often quoted view: “Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people's reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it.” Therefore, understanding civic education, especially democratic education, can, and should, involve both formal settings (schools) and informal settings (families, communities, libraries, houses of worship, workplaces, civic organizations, unions, sports teams, campaigns and elections, mass media, and so on). [ 1 ] Indeed, it seems reasonable to suggest that, following the Athenians of the Classical Age, a sound and effective civic education will coordinate if not integrate these formal and informal settings.

The informal settings and methods are most often associated with political socialization. This entry, however, focuses largely on schooling, which, as Amy Gutmann also points out, is our most deliberate form of human instruction (1987, 15). That is, formal civic education is a term reserved for the organized system of schooling (predominantly public) that aims, as one of its primary purposes, to prepare future citizens for participation in public life. Thus civic education as currently understood is to be contrasted, for example, with paideia (See below.) and other forms of citizen preparation that are informal cultural productions.

Of course, in many significant ways, informal institutions of civic education do help prepare citizens for public participation. Yet today, as Gutmann suggests, the educative effects are often not the deliberate design or intention of those informal institutions. If one were to try to cover all those social and political institutions that had educative effects, the project would become unmanageable. Besides, if we considered civic education to be part of what goes on in any institution even remotely related to civil society, then we are no longer defining and discussing civic education, but are defining and discussing politics itself.

1.1 Ancient Greece

1.2 rousseau: toward progressive education, 1.3 mill: education through political participation.

1.4 Early Civic Education in the United States

2.1 Amy Gutmann: Conscious Social Reproduction

2.2 William Galston: Civic Education in a Representative System

3.1 Good Persons and Good Citizens

3.2 spectrum of virtues, 4.1 service learning, 4.2 john dewey: school as community, 4.3 paulo freire: liberation pedagogy, 5. cosmopolitan education, works cited, works to consult, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the good citizen [ 2 ].

At the same time that civic educators seek to impart skills, knowledge, and participatory virtues, they also seek to engrain in society's youth a felt connection to, if not an identity with, that country or society. This is no small or minor undertaking. “As far back as evidence can be found—and virtually without exception—young adults seem to have been less attached to civic life than their parents and grandparents.” [ 3 ] Hence there is a need to educate youth to be “civic-minded”; that is, to think and care about the welfare of the community (the commonweal or civitas ) and not simply about their own individual well-being. Here lies a danger, however, for many forms of civic education: Those in charge of it may wish to indoctrinate students rather than educate them, thereby abandoning the very mission that they initially undertook. As Sheldon Wolin phrased it: “…[T]he inherent danger…is that the identity given to the collectivity by those who exercise power will reflect the needs of power rather than the political possibilities of a complex collectivity” (1989, 13). For some regimes—fascist or communist, for example—this is not a danger at all but, instead, the very purpose of their forms of civic education. Nowhere, however, is this danger more insidious than in democracy and, therefore, in democratic education.

Democratic education is a subset of civic education. For philosophers it is the most important—indeed, the predominant—subset. This entry, therefore, focuses exclusively on the subset of democratic education.

There are, of course, more propitious reasons for examining civic education in the context of democracies. One significant reason, for example, can be traced to Aristotle. In The Politics Aristotle asks whether there is any case “in which the excellence of the good citizen and the excellence of the good man coincide” (1277a13-15). The answer for him is politea or the mixed constitution in which persons must know both how to rule and how to obey. Herein coincide the excellence, the virtues, of the good man and the good citizen. Thus in modern democracies society has a vested interest in preparing citizens to rule and to be ruled, as Aristotle pointed out. In democracies, therefore, and especially in civic education the virtues of the citizen are an important, and even a vital, aspect of the virtues of a good person.

In this view, a good or virtuous citizen is nothing other than a good or virtuous person acting morally in the public or political sphere. As we shall consider later, just what the virtues are that constitute, at least in part, that person is not easy to ascertain.

The pursuit of this combination or matching of virtues can be considered a central and perpetual theme of civic educators. We see, for example, John Dewey picking up this theme in the 20 th century. From the 18 th century onward, commented Dewey, states came to see education as the best means of perpetuating and recovering their political power. But “the maintenance of a particular national sovereignty required subordination of individuals to the superior interests of the state both in military defense and in struggles for international supremacy in commerce…To form the citizen, not the ‘man,’ became the aim of education” (1916, 90).

In a democracy, however, because of its combination of “numerous and more varied points of shared common interest” and its requirement of “continuous readjustment through meeting the new situations produced by varied intercourse,” which Dewey called “progress,” education could address personal development and “full and free interplay” among social groups (Ibid, 83, 79). In other words, it is in democratic states that we want to look for the preparation of good persons as well as good citizens; that is, for democratic education, which in this context, to repeat for emphasis, is what is meant by civic education.

We have already encountered Aristotle's view that politea or the mixed constitution provides the excellence of both good citizens and good men. Because that requires men to have the virtues both to rule and be ruled, we should not be surprised that ancient Greece, and especially ancient Athens, is the home of democracy. One of the requirements of any democracy is having the rule of law, because it demands, or should demand, that no one is above the law and that all are equal before the law. Thus, before they could have democracy, the Greeks had to have not only laws but also written laws. Otherwise, those in power could declare the law to be whatever they wanted it to be. So the Greeks wrote down their laws, their statutes, on wood or marble tablets and placed them for all to see in the public squares. Of course, citizens and residents of the cities had to be able to read them, and so the rule of law called for public education to teach the people to read. Thus the ancient Greeks provide one of the earliest forms of civic education.

The polis itself was thought to be an educational community, expressed by the Greek term paideia . The purpose of political—that is civic or city—life was the self-development of the citizens. This meant more than just education, which is how paideia is usually translated. Education for the Greeks involved a deeply formative and life-long process whose goal was for each person (read: man) to be an asset to his friends, to his family, and, most important, to the polis.

Becoming such an asset necessitated internalizing and living up to the highest ethical ideals of the community. So paideia included education in the arts, philosophy and rhetoric, history, science, and mathematics; training in sports and warfare; enculturation or learning of the city's religious, social, political, and professional customs and training to participate in them; and the development of one's moral character through the virtues. Above all, the person should have a keen sense of duty to the city. Every aspect of Greek culture in the Classical Age—from the arts to politics and athletics—was devoted to the development of personal powers in public service.

Paideia was inseparable from another Greek concept: arete or excellence, especially excellence of reputation but also goodness and excellence in all aspects of life. Together paideia and arête form one process of self-development, which is nothing other than civic-development. Thus one could only develop himself in politics, through participation in the activities of the polis; and as individuals developed the characteristics of virtue, so would the polis itself become more virtuous and excellent.

All persons, whatever their occupations or tasks, were teachers, and the purpose of education—which was political life itself—was to develop a greater (a nobler, stronger, more virtuous) public community. So politics was more than regulating or ordering the affairs of the community; it was also a “school” for ordering the lives—internal and external—of the citizens. Therefore, the practice of Athenian democratic politics was not only a means of engendering good policies for the city, but it was also a “curriculum” for the intellectual, moral, and civic education of her citizens. “…[A]sk in general what great benefit the state derives from the training by which it educates its citizens, and the reply will be perfectly straightforward. The good education they have received will make them good men…” (Plato, Laws , 641b7-10). Indeed, later in the Laws the Athenian remarks that education should be designed to produce the desire to become “perfect citizens” who know, preceding Aristotle, “how to rule and be ruled” (643e4-6).

But how far should that “curriculum” go? Citizens are taught to obey the laws; should they also be taught to challenge the laws and customs of the city? Was that not one accusation against Socrates? Civic education in a democracy, though not in every kind of regime, must prepare citizens to participate in and thereby perpetuate the system and at the same time prepare them to challenge what they see as inequities and injustice within that system.

What we observe, therefore, in civic education for democracy—that is, in democratic education—is a tension between the need and desire to perpetuate the roles, rules, standards, values, and institutions of the democratic system and the opposite; that is, the need and desire to challenge those very same roles, rules, standards, values, and institutions. So democratic education is be both conservative, as in “conserving” the stability and continuity of the system, and radical, as in calling into question “the roots” or the foundations of that system. The possible solution to this tension is to suggest that no democratic system that cannot withstand scrutiny of its central values, institutions, and principles deserves to be perpetuated or perpetuated in its current form.

Although ancient Athens instituted democracy, her most famous philosophers—Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle—were not great champions of it. At best they were ambiguous about democracy; at worst, they were hostile toward it. The earliest unadulterated champion of democracy, a “dreamer of democracy,” was undoubtedly Rousseau. Yet Rousseau had his doubts that men could be good men and simultaneously good citizens. A good man for Rousseau is a natural man, with the attributes of freedom, independence, equality, happiness, sympathy, and love-of-self ( amour de soi ) found prior to society in the state of nature. Thus society could do little but corrupt such a man.

Still, Rousseau recognized that life in society is unavoidable, and so civic education or learning to function well in society is also unavoidable. The ideal for Rousseau is for men to act morally and yet retain as much of their naturalness as possible. Only in this way can a man retain his freedom; and only if a man follows those rules that he prescribes for himself—that is, only if a man is self-ruling—can he remain free: “…[E]ach individual…obeys no one but himself and remains as free as before [society]” (1988, 60).

Yet prescribing those rules is not a subjective or selfish act. It is a moral obligation because the question each citizen asks himself or should ask himself was not “What's best for me?” Rather, each asks, “What's best for all?” When all citizens ask this question and answer on the basis of what ought to be done, then, says Rousseau, they are expressing and following the general will. Enacting the general will is the only legitimately moral foundation for a law and the only expression of moral freedom. Getting men to ask this question and to answer it actively is the purpose of civic education.

Showing how to educate men to retain naturalness and yet to function in society and participate untouched by corruption in this direct democracy was the purpose of his educational treatise, Emile . If it could be done, Rousseau would show us the way. To do it would seem to require educating a man to be in society but not of society; that is, to be “attached to human society as little as possible” (Ibid, 105).

How could a man for Rousseau be a good man—meaning, for him a naturally good man (1979, 93), showing his amour de soi and also his natural compassion for others—and also have the proper frame of mind of a good citizen to be able to transcend self-interest and prescribe the general will? How could this be done in society when society's influence is nothing but corrupting?

Rousseau himself seems ambivalent on exactly whether men can overcome social corruption. Society is based on private property; private property brings inequality, as some own more than others; such inequality brings forth social comparisons with others ( amour propre ), which in turn can produce envy, pride, and greed. Only when and if men can exercise their moral and political freedom and will the general will can they be saved from the corrupting influences of society. Willing for the general will, which is the good for all, is the act of a moral or good person. Its exercise in the assembly is the act of a good citizen.

Still, Rousseau comments that if “[f]orced to combat nature or the social institutions, one must choose between making a man or a citizen, for one cannot make both at the same time” (Ibid, 39). There seems little, if any, ambiguity here. One cannot make both a man and a citizen at the same time. Yet on the very next page of Emile Rousseau raises the question of whether a man who remains true to himself, to his nature, and is always decisive in his choices “is a man or a citizen, or how he goes about being both at the same time” (Ibid, 40).

Perhaps the contradiction might be resolved if we emphasize that a man cannot be made a man and a citizen at the same time, but he can be a man and a citizen at the same time. Rousseau hints at this distinction when he says of his educational scheme that it avoids the “two contrary ends…the contrary routes…these different impulses…[and] these necessarily opposed objects” (Ibid, 40, 41) when you raise a man “uniquely for himself.” What, then, will he be for others? He will be a man and a citizen, for the “double object we set for ourselves,” those contradictory objects, “could be joined in a single one by removing the contradictions of man…” (Idem). Doubtless, this will be a rare man, but raising a man to live a natural life can be done.

One might find the fully mature, and natural, Emile an abhorrent person. Although “good” in the sense of doing his duty and acting civilly, he seems nevertheless without imagination or deep curiosity about people or life itself—no interest in art or many books or intimate social relationships. Is his independence fear of dependence and thus built on an inability ever to be interdependent? Is he truly independent, or does he exhibit simply the appearance of independence, while the tutor “remains master of his person” (Ibid, 332)?

Whatever one thinks of Rousseau's attempt to educate Emile—whether, for example, the tutor's utter control of Emile's life and environment is not in itself a betrayal of education—Rousseau is a precursor of those progressive educators who seek to permit children to learn at their own rate and from their own experiences, as we shall see below.

Mill argued that participation in representative government, or democracy, is undertaken both for its educative effects on participants and for the beneficial political outcomes. Even if elected or appointed officials can perform better than citizens, Mill thought it advisable for citizens to participate “as a means to their own mental education—a mode of strengthening their active faculties, exercising their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge of the subjects with which they are thus left to deal. This is a principal, though not the sole, recommendation of jury trial; of free and popular local and municipal institutions; of the conduct of industrial and philanthropic enterprises by voluntary associations” (1972, 179). Thus, political participation is a form of civic education good for men and for citizens.

On Liberty , the essay in which the above quotation appears, is not, writes Mill, the occasion for developing this idea as it relates to “parts of national education.” But in Mill's view the development of the person can and should be undertaken in concert with an education for citizens. The “mental education” he describes is “in truth, the peculiar training of a citizen, the practical part of the political education of a free people, taking them out of the narrow circle of personal and family selfishness, and accustoming them to the comprehension of joint interests, the management of joint concerns—habituating them to act from public or semi-public motives, and guide their conduct by aims which unite instead of isolating them from one another” (Idem).

The occasion for discussing civic education as a method of both personal and political development is Mill's Considerations on Representative Government . Mill wants to see persons “progress.” To achieve progress requires “the preservation of all kinds and amounts of good which already exist, and Progress as consisting in the increase of them.” Of what does Mill's good consist? First are “the qualities in the citizens individually which conduce most to keep up the amount of good conduct…Everybody will agree that those qualities are industry, integrity, justice, and prudence” (1972, 201). Add to these “the particular attributes in human beings which seem to have a more especial reference to Progress…They are chiefly the qualities of mental activity, enterprise, and courage” (Ibid, 202).

So, progress is encouraged when society develops the qualities of citizens and persons. Mill tells us that good government depends on the qualities of the human beings that compose it. Men of virtuous character acting in and through justly administered institutions will stabilize and perpetuate the good society. Good persons will be good citizens, provided they have the requisite political institutions in which they can participate. Such participation—as on juries and parish offices—takes participants out of themselves and away from their selfish interests. If that does not occur, if persons regard only their “interests which are selfish,” then, concludes Mill, good government is impossible. “…[I]f the agents, or those who choose the agents, or those to whom the agents are responsible, or the lookers-on whose opinion ought to influence and check all these, are mere masses of ignorance, stupidity, and baleful prejudice, every operation of government will go wrong” (Ibid, 207).

For Mill good government is a two-way street: Good government depends on “the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing the community”; while at the same time government can further “promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves” (Idem). A measure of the quality of any political institution is how far it tends “to foster in the members of the community the various desirable qualities…moral, intellectual, and active” (Ibid, 208). Good persons act politically as good citizens and are thereby maintained or extended in their goodness. “A government is to be judged by its actions upon men…by what it makes of the citizens, and what it does with them; its tendency to improve or deteriorate the people themselves.” Government helps people advance, acts for the improvement of the people, “is at once a great influence acting on the human mind….” Government is, then, “an agency of national education…” (Ibid, 210, 211).

Following Tocqueville, Mill saw political participation as the basis for this national education. “It is not sufficiently considered how little there is in most men's ordinary life to give any largeness either to their conceptions or to their sentiments.” Their work is routine and dull; they proceed through life without much interest or energy. On the other hand, “if circumstances allow the amount of public duty assigned him to be considerable, it makes him an educated man” (Ibid, 233). In this way participation in democratic institutions “must make [persons] very different beings, in range of ideas and development of faculties, from those who have done nothing in their lives but drive a quill, or sell goods over a counter” (Idem).

There was no national public schooling in Mill's Great Britain, and there were clearly lots of Britons without the requisite characteristics either of good citizens or of good men. Mill was certainly aware of this. He was much influenced by Tocqueville's writings on the tyranny of the majority. Mill feared, as did Tocqueville, that the undereducated or uneducated would dominate and tyrannize politics so as to undermine authority and individuality. Being ignorant and inexperienced, the uneducated and undereducated would be susceptible to all manner of demagoguery and manipulation. So too much power in the hands of the inept and ignorant could damage good citizenship and dam the course of self-development. To remedy this Mill proposed two solutions: limit participation and provide the competent and educated with plural votes.

In Mill's “ideally best polity” the highest levels of policymaking would be reserved for nationally elected representatives and for experts in the civil service. These representatives and experts would not only carry out their political duties, but they would also educate the public through debate and deliberation in representative assemblies, in public forums, and through the press. To assure that the best were elected and for the sake of rational government, Mill provided plural votes to those with college educations and to those of certain occupations and training. All citizens (but the criminal and illiterate) could vote, but not all citizens would vote equally. Some citizens, because they were educated or highly trained persons, were “better” than others: “…[T]hough every one ought to have a voice—that every one should have an equal voice is a totally different proposition…No one but a fool…feels offended by the acknowledgment that there are others whose opinion, and even whose wish, is entitled to a greater amount of consideration than his” (Ibid, 307-8).

But education was the great leveling factor. Though not his view when he wrote Considerations on Representative Government , Mill wrote in his autobiography that universal education could make plural voting unnecessary (1924, pp. 153, 183-84). Mill did acknowledge in Representative Government that a national system of education or “a trustworthy system of general examination” would simplify the means of ascertaining “mental superiority” of some persons over others. In their absence, a person's years of schooling and nature of occupation would suffice to determine who would receive plural votes (1972, 308-09). Given Mill's prescriptions for political participation and given the lessons learned from the deliberations and debates of representatives and experts, however, it is doubtful that civic education would have constituted much of his national education.

1.4 Early Civic Education in the United States [ 4 ]

When Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 23 that the federal government ought to be granted “an unconfined authority in respect to all those objects which are entrusted to its management” (1987, p. 187), he underscored the need of the newly organized central government for, in Sheldon Wolin's words, “a new type of citizen…one who would accept the attenuated relationship with power implied if voting and elections were to serve as the main link between citizens and those in power.” [ 5 ] Schools would be entrusted to develop this new type of citizen.

It is commonplace, therefore, to find among those who examine the interstices of democracy and education views much like Franklin Delano Roosevelt's: “That the schools make worthy citizens is the most important responsibility placed on them.” In the United States public schools had the mission of educating the young for citizenship.

Initially education in America was not publicly funded. It wasn't even a system, however inchoate. Instead it was every community for itself. Nor was it universal education. Education was restricted to free white males and, moreover, free white males who could afford the school fees. One of the “founders” of the public-school system in the United States, even though his era predated the establishment of public schools, was Noah Webster, who saw education as the tool for developing a national identity. As a result, he created his own speller and dictionary as a way of advancing a common American language.

Opposed to this idea of developing a national identity was Thomas Jefferson, who saw education as the means for safeguarding individual rights, especially against the intrusions of the state. Central to Jefferson's democratic education were the “liberal arts.” These arts liberate men and women (though Jefferson was thinking only of men) from the grip of both tyrants and demagogues and enable those liberated to rule themselves. Through his ward system of education, Jefferson proposed establishing free schools to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, and from these schools those of intellectual ability, regardless of background or economic status, would receive a college education paid for by the state.

When widespread free or publicly funded education did come to America in the 19 th century, it came in the form of Horace Mann's “common school.” Such schools would educate all children together, “in common,” regardless of their background, religion, or social standing. Underneath such fine sentiments lurked an additional goal: to ensure that all children could flourish in America's democratic system. The civic education curriculum was explicit, if not simplistic. To create good citizens and good persons required little beyond teaching the basic mechanics of government and imbuing students with loyalty to America and her democratic ideals. That involved large amounts of rote memorization of information about political and military history and about the workings of governmental bodies at the local, state, and federal levels. It also involved conformity to specific rules describing conduct inside and outside of school.

Through this kind of civic education, all children would be melded, if not melted, into an American citizen. A heavy emphasis on Protestantism at the expense of Catholicism was one example of such work. What some supporters might have called “assimilation” of foreigners into an American way of life, critics saw as “homogenization,” “normalization,” and “conformity,” if not “uniformity.” With over nine million immigrants coming to America between 1880 and the First World War, it is not surprising that there was resistance by many immigrant communities to what seemed insensitivity to foreign language and culture. Hence what developed was a system of religious—namely Catholic—education separate from the “public school” system.

While Webster and, after him, Mann wanted public education to generate the national identity that they thought democracy required, later educational reformers moved away from the idea of the common school and toward a differentiation of students. The Massachusetts Commission on Industrial and Technical Education, for example, pushed in 1906 for industrial and vocational education in the public schools. Educating all youth equally for participation in democracy by giving them a liberal, or academic, education, they argued, was a waste of time and resources. “School reformers insisted that the academic curriculum was not appropriate for all children, because most children—especially the children of immigrants and of African Americans—lacked the intellectual capacity to study subjects like algebra and chemistry” (Ravitch, 2001, 21).

Acting against this view of education was John Dewey. Because Dewey saw democracy as a way of life, he argued that all children deserved and required a democratic education. [ 6 ] As citizens came to share in the interests of others, which they would do in their schools, divisions of race, class, and ethnicity would be worn down and transcended. Dewey thought that the actual interests and experiences of students should be the basis of their education. I recur to a consideration of Dewey and civic education below.

2. The Good Democrat

If voting and campaigns alone are the principal activities of citizenship, as Sheldon Wolin suggests, then what kind of civic education is warranted for creating worthy citizens?

Future citizens might be required only to know how, for example, a democratic system works—the functions of the different branches, the purpose and procedures of elections, the history of the country's systems of governance and governmental institutions—and to know the rights and obligations of citizenship. This is, of course, the content of much civic education today.

Along this line of thinking, one could make an argument that today's sound-bite candidates, their stump-speech “debates,” and their perpetual money-driven campaigns require little in the way of civic education for our citizens. Of course, someone else could argue that our democratic elections demand the opposite: a civic education in critical thinking, if not in resistance, to expose the nature of campaigns and elections. But if you arm citizens with a civic education that teaches them to step back reflectively and critically from our democratic systems, then, so one version could go, you should expect a critique of that system since it fails to exercise the very critical-thinking skills that they were taught.

If, therefore, we wish to educate future citizens for a different sort of participation, if we want them to challenge officials and the nature and scope of the democratic system itself—that is, if we want civic education and not civic indoctrination—then we also need to educate them to think critically about our democratic systems. Both political knowledge and critical thinking are required if citizens are to participate and share in what Amy Gutmann describes as the collective re-creation of our society or “conscious social reproduction” (1987, 14 and passim). Gutmann's arguments on how to justify democratic education are some of the best currently on offer.

Democratic society-at-large, argues Gutmann, has a significant stake in the education of its children, for they will grow up to be democratic citizens. At the very least, then, society has the responsibility for educating all children for citizenship. Because democratic societies have this responsibility, we cannot leave the education of future citizens to the will or whim of parents. This central insight leads Gutmann to rule out certain exclusive suzerainties of power over educational theory and policy. Those suzerainties are of three sorts. First is “the family state” in which all children are educated into the sole good life identified and fortified by the state. Such education cultivates “a level of like-mindedness and camaraderie among citizens” that most persons find only in families (Ibid, 23). Only the state can be entrusted with the authority to mandate and carry out an education of such magnitude that all will learn to desire this one particular good life over all others.

Next is “the state of families” that rests on the impulse of families to perpetuate their values through their children. This state “places educational authority exclusively in the hands of parents, thereby permitting parents to predispose their children, through education, to choose a way of life consistent with their familial heritage” (Ibid, 28).

Finally, Gutmann argues against “the state of individuals,” which is based on a notion of liberal neutrality in which both parents and the state look to educational experts to make certain that no way of life is neglected nor discriminated against. The desire here is to avoid controversy, and to avoid teaching virtues, in a climate of social pluralism. Yet, as Gutmann points out, any educational policy is itself a choice that will shape our children's character. Choosing to educate for freedom rather than for virtue is still insinuating an influential choice.

In light of these three theories that fail to provide an adequate foundation for educational authority, Gutmann proposes “a democratic state of education.” This state recognizes that educational authority must be shared among parents, citizens, and educational professionals, because each has a legitimate interest in each child and the child's future. Whatever our aim of education, whatever kind of education these authorities argue for, it will not be, it cannot be, neutral. Needed is an educational aim that is inclusive. Gutmann settles on our inclusive commitment as democratic citizens to conscious social reproduction, the self-conscious shaping of the structures of society. To actuate this commitment we as a society “must educate all educable children to be capable of participating in collectively shaping their society” (Ibid, 14).

To shape the structures of society, to engage in conscious social reproduction, students will need to develop the capacities for examining and evaluating competing conceptions of the good life and the good society, and society must avoid the inculcation “in children [of the] uncritical acceptance of any particular way or ways of [personal and political] life” (Ibid, 44). This is the crux of Gutmann's democratic education. For this reason, she argues forcefully that children must learn to exercise critical deliberation among good lives and, presumably, good societies. To assure that they can do so, limits must be set for when and where parents and the state can interfere. Guidelines must be introduced that limit the political authority of the state and the parental authority of families. One limit is nonrepression, which assures that neither the state nor any group within it can “restrict rational deliberation of competing conceptions of the good life and the good society” (Idem). In this way, adults cannot use their freedom to deliberate to prohibit the future deliberative freedom of children. Furthermore, claims Gutmann, nonrepression requires schools to support “the intellectual and emotional preconditions for democratic deliberation among future generations of citizens” (Ibid, 76.)

The second limit is nondiscrimination, which prevents the state or groups within the state from excluding anyone or any group from an education in deliberation. Thus, as Gutmann says, “all educable children must be educated” (Ibid, 45).

Gutmann's point is not that the state has a greater interest than parents in the education of our children. Instead, her point is that all citizens of the state have a common interest in educating future citizens. Therefore, while parents should have a say in the education of their children, the state should have a say as well. Yet neither should have the final, or a monopolistic, say. Indeed, these two interested parties should also cede some of their educational authority to educational experts. There is, therefore, a collective interest in schooling, which is why Gutmann finds parental “choice” and voucher programs unacceptable.

But is conscious social reproduction the only aim of education? What about shaping one's private concerns? Isn't educating the young to be good persons also important? Or are the skills that encourage citizen participation also the skills necessary for making personal life choices and personal decision-making? For Gutmann, educating for one is also educating for the other: “…[M]any if not all of the capacities necessary for choice among good lives are also necessary for choice among good societies” (p. 40). She goes even further: “a good life and a good society for self-reflective people require (respectively) individual and collective freedom of choice” (Idem). Here Gutmann is stipulating that to have conscious social reproduction citizens must have the opportunity—the freedom and the capacities—to exercise personal or self-reflective choice.

Because the state is interested in the education of future citizens, all children must develop those capacities necessary for choice among good societies; this is simply what Gutmann means by being able to participate in conscious social reproduction. Yet such capacities also enable persons to scrutinize the ways of life that they have inherited. Thus, Gutmann concludes, it is illegitimate for any parent to impose a particular way of life on anyone else, even on his/her own child, for this would deprive the child of the capacities necessary for citizenship as well as for choosing a good life.

Gutmann's position is that government can and must force one to participate in an education for citizenship. Children must be exposed to ways of life different from their parents' and must embrace certain values such as mutual respect. On this last point Gutmann is insistent. She argues that choice is not meaningful, for anyone, unless persons choosing have “the intellectual skills necessary to evaluate ways of life different from that of their parents.” Without the teaching of such skills as a central component of education children will not be taught “mutual respect among persons” (Ibid, 30-31). “Teaching mutual respect is instrumental to assuring all children the freedom to choose in the future…[S]ocial diversity enriches our lives by expanding our understanding of differing ways of life. To reap the benefits of social diversity, children must be exposed to ways of life different from their parents and—in the course of their exposure—must embrace certain values, such as mutual respect among persons…” (Ibid, 32-33).

2.2 William Galston: Civic Education in Representative Democracy

Yet what Gutmann suggests seems to go beyond seeing diversity as enrichment. She suggests that children not simply tolerate ways of life divergent from their own, but that they actually respect them. She is careful to say “mutual respect among persons,” which can only mean that neo-Nazis, while advocating an execrable way of life, must be respected as persons, though their way of life should be condemned. Perhaps this is a subtlety that Gutmann intended, but William Galston, for one, has come away thinking that Gutmann advocates forcing children to confront their own ways of life as they simultaneously show respect for neo-Nazis.

In our representative system, argues Galston, citizens need to develop “the capacity to evaluate the talents, character, and performance of public officials” (1989, p. 93). This, he says, is what our democratic system demands from citizens. Thus he disagrees with Gutmann, so much so that he says, “It is at best a partial truth to characterize the United States as a democracy in Gutmann's sense” (Ibid, p. 94). We do not require deliberation among our citizens, says Galston, because “representative institutions replace direct self-government for many purposes” (Idem). Civic education, therefore, should not be about teaching the skills and virtues of deliberation, but, instead, about teaching “the virtues and competences needed to select representatives wisely, to relate to them appropriately, and to evaluate their performance in office soberly” (Idem).

Because civic education is limited in scope to what Galston outlines above, students will not be expected, and will not be taught, to evaluate their own ways of life. Persons must be able to lead the kinds of lives they find valuable, without fear that they will be coerced into believing or acting or thinking contrary to their values, including being led to question those ways of life that they have inherited. As Galston points out, “[c]ivic tolerance of deep differences is perfectly compatible with unswerving belief in the correctness of one's own way of life” (Ibid, p. 99).

Some parents, for example, are not interested in having their children choose ways of life. Those parents believe that the way of life that they currently follow is not simply best for them but is best simpliciter . To introduce choice is simply to confuse the children and the issue. If you know the true way to live, is it best to let your children wade among diverse ways of life until they can possibly get it right? Or should you socialize the children into the right way of life as soon and as quickly as possible?

Yet what about the obligations that parents, as citizens, and children as future citizens, owe the state? How can children be prepared to participate in collectively shaping society if they have not received an education in how to deliberate about choices? To this some parents might respond that they are not interested in having their children focus on participation, or perhaps on anything secular. What these parents appreciate about liberal democracy is that there is a clear, and firm, separation between public and private, and they seek to focus exclusively on the private. Citizenship offers protections of the law, and it does not require participation. Liberal democracy certainly will not force one to participate.

Yet both Galston and Gutmann want to educate children for “democratic character.” Both see the need in this respect for critical thinking. For Galston children must develop “the capacity to evaluate the talents, character, and performance of public officials”; Gutmann seeks to educate the capacities necessary for choice among good lives and for choice among good societies. However much critical thinking plays in democratic character, active participation requires something more than mere skills, even thinking skills.

3. The Good Person

The qualities of the good citizen are not, then, simply the skills necessary to participate in the political system. They are also the virtues that will lead one to participate, to want to participate, to have a disposition to participate. This is what Rousseau was referring to when he described how citizens in his ideal polity would “fly to the assemblies” (1988, 140). Citizens, that is, ought to display a certain kind of disposition or character. As it turns out, and not surprisingly, given our perspective, in a democracy the virtues or traits that constitute good citizenship are also closely associated with being a good or moral person. We can summarize that close association as what we mean by the phrase "good character."

It is the absence of these virtues or traits—that is, the absence of character—that leads some to conclude that democracy, especially in the United States, is in crisis. The withering of our democratic system, argues Richard Battistoni, for one, can be traced to “a crisis in civic education” and the failure of our educators to prepare citizens for democratic participation (1985, pp. 4-5). Missing, he argues, is a central character trait, a disposition to participate. Crucial to the continuation of our democracy “is the proper inculcation in the young of the character, skills, values, social practices, and ideals that foster democratic politics” (Ibid, p. 15); in other words, educating for democratic character.

Two groups predominate in advocating the use of character education as a way of improving democracy. One group comprises political theorists such as Galston, Battistoni, Benjamin Barber, and Adrian Oldfield who often reflect modern-day versions of civic republicanism. This group wishes to instill or nurture [ 7 ] a willingness among our future citizens to sacrifice their self-interests for the sake of the common good. Participation on this view is important both to stabilize society and to enhance each individual's human flourishing through the promotion of our collective welfare.

The second group does not see democratic participation as the center, but instead sees democratic participation as one aspect of overall character education. Central to the mission of our public schools, on this view, is the establishing of character traits important both to individual conduct (being a good person) and to a thriving democracy (being a good citizen). The unannounced leader of the second group is educational practitioner Thomas Lickona, and it includes such others as William Bennett and Patricia White.

Neither group describes in actual terms what might be called “democratic character.” Though their work intimates such character, they talk more about character traits important to human growth and well-being, which also happen to be related to democratic participation. What traits do these pundits discuss, and what do they mean by “character”?

It is difficult, comments British philosopher R. S. Peters, “to decide what in general we mean when we speak of a person's character as distinct from his nature, his temperament, and his personality” (1966, p. 40). Many advocates of character education are vague on just this distinction, and it might be helpful to propose that character consists of traits that are learned, while personality and temperament consist of traits that are innate. [ 8 ]

What advocates are clear on, however, is that character is the essence of what we are. The term comes from the world of engraving, from the Greek term kharakter , an instrument used for making distinctive marks. Thus character is what marks a person or persons as distinctive.

Character is not just one attribute or trait. It signifies the sum total of particular traits, the “sum of mental and moral qualities” ( O.E.D ., p. 163). The addition of “moral qualities” to the definition may be insignificant, for character carries with it a connotation of “good” traits. Thus character traits are associated, if not synonymous, with virtues. So a good person and, in the context of liberal democracy, a good citizen will have these virtues.

To Thomas Lickona a virtue is “a reliable inner disposition to respond to situations in a morally good way” (p. 51); “good character,” he continues, “consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good” (Idem). Who determines what the good is? In general, inculcated traits or virtues or dispositions are used “in following rules of conduct.” These are the rules that reinforce social conventions and social order (Peters, p. 40). So in this view social convention determines what “good” means.

This might be problematic. What occurs when the set of virtues of the good person clashes with the set of virtues of the good citizen? What is thought to be good in one context, even when approved by society, is not necessarily what is thought to be good in another. Should the only child of a deceased farmer stay at home to care for his ailing mother, or should he, like a good citizen, join the resistance to fight an occupying army?

What do we do when the requirements of civic education call into question the values or beliefs of what one takes to be the values of being a good person? In Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education just such a case occurred. Should the Mozerts and other fundamentalist Christian parents have the right to opt their children out of those classes that required their children to read selections that went against or undermined their faith? On the one hand, if they are permitted to opt out, then without those children present the class is denied the diversity of opinion on the reading selections that would be educative and a hallmark of democracy. On the other hand, if the children cannot opt out, then they are denied the right to follow their faith as they think necessary. [ 9 ]

We can see, therefore, why educating for character has never been straightforward. William Bennett pushes for the virtues of patriotism, loyalty, and national pride; Amy Gutmann wants to see toleration of difference and mutual respect. Can a pacifist in a time of war be a patriot? Is the rebel a hero or simply a troublemaker? [ 10 ] Can idealized character types speak to all of our students and to the variegated contexts in which they will find themselves?

Should our teachers teach a prescribed morality, often closely linked to certain religious ideas and ideals? Should they teach a content only of secular values related to democratic character? Or should they teach a form of values clarification in which children's moral positions are identified but not criticized?

These two approaches—a prescribed moral content or values clarification—appear to form the two ends of a character education spectrum. At one end is the method of indoctrination of prescribed values and virtues, regardless of sacred or secular orientation. But here some citizens will express concern about just whose values are to be taught or, to some, imposed. [ 11 ] At the same time, some will see the inculcation of specified values and virtues as little more than teaching a “morality of compliance” (Nord, 2001, 144).

At the other end of the spectrum is values clarification, [ 12 ] but this seems to be a kind of moral relativism where everything goes because nothing can be ruled out. In values clarification there is no right or wrong value to hold. Indeed, teachers are supposed to be value neutral so as to avoid imposing values on their students and to avoid damaging students' self-esteem. William Damon calls this approach “anything-goes constructivism” (1996), for such a position may leave the door open for students to approve racism, violence, and “might makes right.”

Is there a middle of the spectrum that would not impose values or simply clarify values? There is no middle path that can cut a swath through imposition on one side and clarification on the other. Perhaps the closest we can get is to offer something like Gutmann's or Galston's teaching of critical thinking. Here students can think about and think through what different moral situations require of persons. With fascists looking for hiding Jews, I lie; about my wife's new dress, I tell the truth (well, usually). Even critical thinking, however, requires students to be critical about something. That is, we must presuppose the existence, if not prior inculcation, of some values about which to be critical.

What we have, then, is not a spectrum but a sequence, a developmental sequence. Character education, from this perspective, begins with the inculcation in students of specific values. But at a later date character education switches to teaching and using the skills of critical thinking on the very values that have been inculcated.

This approach is in keeping with what William Damon, an expert on innovative education and on intellectual and moral development, has observed: “The capacity for constructive criticism is an essential requirement for civic engagement in a democratic society; but in the course of intellectual development, this capacity must build upon a prior sympathetic understanding of that which is being criticized” (2001, 135).

The process, therefore, would consist of two phases, two developmental phases. Phase One is the indoctrination phase. Yet which values do we inculcate? Perhaps the easiest way to begin is to focus first on those behaviors that all students must possess. In fact, without first insisting that students “behave,” it seems problematic whether students could ever learn to think critically. Every school, in order to conduct the business of education, reinforces certain values and behaviors. Teachers demand that students sit in their seats; raise their hands before speaking; hand assignments in on time; display sportsmanship on the athletic field; be punctual when coming to class; do not cheat on their tests or homework; refrain from attacking one another on the playground, in the hallways, or in the classroom; be respectful of and polite to their elders (e.g., teachers, staff, administrators, parents, visitors, police); and the like. The teachers' commands, demands, manner of interacting with the students, and own conformity to the regulations of the classroom and school establish an ethos of behavior—a way of conducting oneself within that institution. From the ethos come the requisite virtues—honesty, cooperation, civility, respect, and so on. [ 13 ]

Another set of values to inculcate at this early stage is that associated with democracy. Here the lessons are more didactic than behavioral. One point of civic education in a democracy is to raise free and equal citizens who appreciate that they have both rights and responsibilities. Students need to learn that they have freedoms, such as those found in Bill of Rights (press, assembly, worship, and the like) in the U. S. Constitution. But they also need to learn that they have responsibilities to their fellow citizens and to their country. This requires teaching students to obey the law; not to interfere with the rights of others; and to honor their country, its principles, and its values. Schools must teach those traits or virtues that conduce to democratic character: cooperation, honesty, toleration, and respect.

So we inculcate in our students the values and virtues that our society honors as those that constitute good citizenship and good character. But if we inculcate a love of justice, say, is it the justice found in our laws or an ideal justice that underlies all laws? Obviously, this question will not arise in the minds of most, if any, first graders. As students mature and develop cognitively, however, such questions will arise. So a high-school student studying American History might well ask whether the Jim Crow laws found in the South were just laws simply because they were the law. Or were they only just laws until they were discovered through argument to be unjust? Or were they always unjust because they did not live up to some ideal conception of justice?

Then we could introduce Phase Two of character education: education in judgment. Judgment is based on weighing and considering reasons and evidence for and against propositions. Judgment is a virtue that relies upon practical wisdom; it is established as a habit through practice. Judgment, or thoughtfulness, was the master virtue for Aristotle from whose exercise comes an appreciation for those other virtues: honesty, cooperation, toleration, and respect.

Because young children have difficulty taking up multiple perspectives, as developmental psychologists tell us, thinking and deliberating that require the consideration of multiple perspectives would seem unsuitable for elementary-school children. Additionally, young children are far more reliant on the teacher's involvement in presenting problem situations in which the children's knowledge and skills can be applied and developed. R. S. Peters offers an important consideration in this regard:

The cardinal function of the teacher, in the early stages, is to get the pupil on the inside of the form of thought or awareness with which he is concerned. At a later stage, when the pupil has built into his mind both the concepts and the mode of exploration involved, the difference between teacher and taught is obviously only one of degree. For both are participating in the shared experience of exploring a common world (1966, 53).

The distinction between those moving into “the inside” of reflective thinking and those already there may seem so vast as to be a difference of kind, not degree. But the difference is always one of degree. Elementary-school students have yet to develop the skills and knowledge, or have yet to gain the experience, to participate in phase- two procedures that require perspectivism.

In this two-phased civic education teachers inculcate specific virtues such as patriotism. But at a later stage this orientation toward solidifying a conventional perspective gives way to one of critical thinking. The virtue of patriotism shifts from an indoctrinated feeling of exaltation for the nation, whatever its actions and motives, to a need to examine the nation's principles and practices to see whether those practices are in harmony with those principles. The first requires loyalty; the second, judgment. We teach the first through pledges, salutes, and oaths; we teach the second through critical inquiry.

Have we introduced a significant problem when we teach students to judge values, standards, and beliefs critically? Could this approach lead to students' contempt for authority and tradition? Students need to see and hear that disagreement does not necessarily entail disrespect. Thoughtful, decent people can disagree. To teach students that those who disagree with us in a complicated situation like abortion or affirmative action are wrong or irresponsible or weak is to treat them unfairly. It also conveys the message that we think that we are infallible and have nothing to learn from what others have to say. Such positions undercut democracy.

Would all parents approve of such a two-phased civic education? Would they abide their children's possible questioning of their families' values and religious views? Yet the response to such parental concerns must be the same as that to any authority figure: Why do you think that you are always right? Aren't there times when parents can see that it is better to lie, maybe even to their children, than to tell the truth? This, however, presupposes that parents, or authority figures, are themselves willing to exercise critical judgment on their own positions, values, and behaviors. This point underscores the need to involve other social institutions and persons in character education.

4. Civic Education as Political Action

Civic education as political action is to be contrasted with the more traditional form or teacher-centered education. This is not to suggest that those teaching political action will shirk or short-change knowledge and instruction in favor of exercises, simulations, and projects. Instead, knowledge and instruction arise out of the students' own experiences and interests. That is the point of student-centered in place of teacher-centered education.

Putting students into the community-at-large is today called “service learning,” which is a form of civic education that integrates classroom instruction with work within the community. This is not a combination of classroom and community, as if students undertake two different kinds of work side-by-side. Rather, the work done in the community has a learning objective related directly to what the students are studying in the classroom.

Service learning is in keeping with Dewey's emphasis on students' linking learning with real-world experiences found in their communities. Dewey warned of the “standing danger that the material of formal instruction will be merely the subject matter of the schools, isolated from the subject matter of life experience.” This could be countered by immersing students in “the spirit of service,” especially by learning about the various occupations within their communities (1916, 10-11, 49). [ 14 ]

A variation of service learning, highly popular in the U.S. during the 1970's, is experiential learning, which was thought of as a species of civic education. Jerome Bruner, the renowned educator and psychologist, proposed that some classroom learning ought to be devoted to students creating political-action plans addressing significant social and political issues such as poverty or race. He also urged educators to get their students out into the local communities to explore the occupations, ways of life, and habits of residence. Bruner is here following Dewey, who criticized traditional education for its failure to get teachers and students out into the community to become intimately familiar with the physical, historical, occupational, and economic conditions that could then be used as educational resources (Dewey 1938, 40).

We live in an age of high-density electronic technology—for example, television, DVD players, cell phones that serve as cameras and computers, computer and video games. In this climate face-to-face interaction seems in decline as people isolate themselves in their homes and offices and disconnect themselves more and more from public, and thus political, interaction. As a result, the need for experiential education, service-learning, and activist civic education may never have been greater.

Activism in this sense is nothing other than students taking an active role in their own learning and doing so in contexts within and outside the classroom. It is experiential and cooperative learning. William Damon concludes that the most effective moral education programs “are those that engage students directly in action, with subsequent opportunities for reflection” (2001, 144). Community service is touted, almost universally, as one such avenue of reflection. But that is really just the beginning.

We can think of political action as participation that can involve far more than voting, working on a campaign, or writing a letter to the editor. It can take many other forms: attending and participating in political meetings; organizing and running meetings, rallies, protests, fund drives; gathering signatures for bills, ballots, initiatives, recalls; serving without pay on local elected and appointed boards; starting or participating in political clubs; deliberating with fellow citizens about social and political issues central to their lives; and the like. If we include service-learning as part of civic education, then we can broaden the concept of civic education even further to include various kinds of voluntarism and community work. Action here could include participation in the sphere of civil society, the network of non-governmental and private organizations differentiated from the family, the market, and the state. Students could be encouraged to volunteer in a soup kitchen, take part in a walkathon, clean up a neighborhood, or organize a basketball tournament to benefit homeless children. Such action exercises the skills that can be associated with political action.

Thus, one argument for activist civic education is that it meets the criteria of cultivating both good persons and good citizens. When students take responsibility for their own learning, when they work together cooperatively, when they deliberate about how to proceed on a project in the community or in their classrooms, and when they actually work in the community, they exercise the skills and values that we associate with democracy and effective, moral social interaction. They exhibit the values, or virtues, of toleration of differences, mutual respect, listening, reasoning, criticizing, empathy, and acceptance of responsibility.

Why does action work so well as a form of moral or character education? “The reason, again, is that students respond to experiences that touch their emotions and senses of self in a firsthand way” (Damon, 2001, 141). There is also a “negative” reason, which is really a compensatory reason: As Conover and Searing point out, “while most students identify themselves as citizens, their grasp of what it means to act as citizens is rudimentary and dominated by a focus on rights, thus creating a privately oriented, passive understanding” (2000, 108). To bring them out of this private and passive understanding, nothing is better, as Tocqueville noted, than political participation. The kind of participation here is political action, not simply voting or giving money.

Nowhere is there a better site for political or democratic action than the school itself, the students' own community. This is Dewey's insight (1916). Creating a democratic culture within the schools not only facilitates preparing students for democratic participation in the political system, but it also fosters a democratic environment that shapes the relationships with adults and among peers that the students already engage in. “Students learn much more from the way a school is run,” comments Theodore Sizer, “and the best way to teach values is when the school is a living example of the values to be taught” (1984, 120, 122).

Real problems, and not hypotheticals or academic exercises, are, Dewey argued, always of real concern to students. So in addition to activities of writing and classroom discussion, typical of today's public schools, students should engage in “active inquiry and careful deliberation in the significant and vital problems” that confront their communities, however defined but especially their schools (1910, 55). Book lessons and classroom discussions rarely connect with decision-making on issues that affect that community. In fact, Dewey comments that traditional methods of instruction are often “foreign to the existing capacities of the young…beyond the reach of [their] experience…[T]he very situation forbids much active participation by pupils” (1938, 19).

As a core of learning Dewey wanted “an experiential continuum” (1938, 28, 33). The experiences that he wanted to promote were those that underscored healthy growth; those, in other words, that generated a greater desire to learn and to keep on learning and that built upon prior experiences. “[D]emocratic social experiences” were superior in providing “a better quality of human experience” than any other form of social or political organization (Ibid, 34).

One logical, and practical, possibility was to make the operations of the school part of the curriculum. Let the students use their in-school experiences to make, or help make, decisions that directly affect some of the day-to-day operations of the school—student discipline, maintenance of the grounds and buildings, problems with cliques, issues of sexism and racism, incidents of ostracism, and the like—as well as topics and issues inside the classrooms. Make the school itself part of the curriculum.

Dewey thought of schools as “embryo communities” (1915, 174), “institution[s] in which the child is, for the time…to be a member of a community life in which he feels that he participates, and to which he contributes” (1916, 88). We need not become sidetracked in questioning just what Dewey means by, or what we should mean by, “community” to grasp the sense that he is after. It is not surprising that Dewey wanted to give students experience in making decisions that affect their lives in schools. What is surprising is that so little democracy takes place in schools and that those who spend the most time in schools have the least opportunity to experience it.

The significance of democratic decision-making within the schools and about the wider community—the making of actual decisions through democratic means—cannot be overstated. As a propaedeutic to democratic participation, political action of this sort is invaluable. Melissa S. Williams comments: “…[L]earning cooperation as a practice is the only way to develop individuals' sense of agency to reshape the world they share with others. It teaches moderation in promoting one's own vision, and the capacity of individuals to see themselves as part of a project of collective self-rule” (2005, 238; emphasis in original).

Of course, not everything in school should be decided democratically. There are some areas in which decisions require expertise—a combination of experience and knowledge—that rules out students as decision-makers. Chief among such areas is pedagogy. Because the teachers and administrators know more about the processes of education and about their subjects, because they have firsthand and often intimate knowledge of the range and nature of abilities and problems of their students—a point emphasized by Dewey (1938, 56)—as well as the particular circumstances in which the learning takes place, they and not the students should make pedagogical decisions.

At the same time, because many students are still children, the decisions that they are to make should be age-appropriate. Not all democratic procedures or school issues are suitable for all ages. Differences in cognitive, social, and emotional development, especially at the elementary-school level, complicate democratic action. While all students may have the same capacity as potentiality, activating those capacities requires development, as noted in the discussion of a two-phased form of civic education.

In his critique of traditional pedagogy Paulo Freire refers to teacher-centered education as the “banking concept of education” (1970, 72). This for Freire is unacceptable as civic education. Too often, observes Freire, students are asked to memorize and repeat ideas, stanzas, phrases, and formulas without understanding the meaning of or meaning behind them. This process “turns [students] into ‘containers,’ into ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher” (Idem). As a result, students are nothing but objects, nothing but receptacles to receive, file, and store deposits—that is, containers for what the teacher has deposited in their “banks.”

Like Dewey, Freire thinks that knowledge comes only from invention and reinvention and the perpetual inquiry in the world that is a mark of all free human beings. Students thereby educate the teachers as well. In sharp contrast, then, to the banking concept is “‘problem-posing’ education” (Ibid, 79), which is an experiential education that empowers students by educing the power that they already possess.

That power is to be used to liberate themselves from oppression. This pedagogy to end oppression, as Freire writes, “must be forged with , not for , the oppressed” (1970, 48; emphases in original), irrespective of whether they are children or adults. Freire worked primarily with illiterate adult peasants in South America, but his work has applications as well to schools and school-aged children. It is to be a pedagogy for all, and Freire includes oppressors and the oppressed.

To overcome oppression people must first critically recognize its causes. One cause is people's own internalization of the oppressor consciousness [or “image,” as Freire says at one point (Ibid, 61)]. Until the oppressed seek to remove this internalized oppressor, they cannot be free. They will continue to live in the duality of both oppressed and oppressor. It is no wonder, then, as Freire tells us, that peasants once promoted to overseers become more tyrannical toward their former workmates than the owners themselves (Ibid, 46). The banking concept of education precludes the perspective that students need to recognize their oppression: “The more students [or adults] work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world” (Ibid, 73).

Having confronted the reality of the dual nature of her consciousness, having discovered her own internal oppressor and realized her actual situation, the person now must act on her realization. She must act, in other words, in and on the world so as to lessen oppression. Freire wanted his students, whether adult peasants or a country's youth, to value their cultures as they simultaneously questioned some of those cultures' practices and ethos. This Freire referred to as “reading the word”—as in ending illiteracy—and “reading the world”—the ability to analyze social and political situations that influenced and especially limited people's life chances. For Freire, to question was not enough; people must act as well.

Liberation, therefore, is a “praxis,” but it cannot consist of action alone, which Freire calls “activism.” It must be, instead, action combined with “serious reflection” (Ibid, 79, 65). This reflection or “reflective participation” takes place in dialogue with others who are in the same position of realization and action.

This “critical and liberating dialogue,” also known as “culture circles,” is the heart of Freire's pedagogy. The circles consist of somewhere between 12 and 25 students and some teachers, all involved in dialogic exchange. The role of the “teachers” in this civic education is to participate with the people/students in these dialogues. “The correct method for a revolutionary leadership…is, therefore, not ‘libertarian propaganda.’ Nor can the leadership merely ‘implant’ in the oppressed a belief in freedom…The correct method lies in dialogue” (Ibid, 67).

The oppressed thereby use their own experiences and language to explain and surmount their oppression. They do not rely upon others, even teachers, to explain their oppressed circumstances. “Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teachers” (Ibid, 80). The reciprocity of roles means that students teach teachers as teachers teach students. Dialogue encourages everyone to teach and everyone to create together.

Because Freire worked with illiterate adult peasants, he insisted that the circles use the ways of speaking and the shared understandings of the peasants themselves. In the circles the learners identify their own problems and concerns and seek answers to them in the group dialogue. Dialogue focuses on what Freire called “codifications,” which are representations of the learner's day-to-day circumstances (Ibid, 114 and passim). Codifications may be photographs, drawings, poems, even a single word. As representations, codifications abstract the daily circumstances. For example, a photograph of workers in a sugar cane field permits workers to talk about the realities of their work and working conditions without identifying them as the actual workers in the photograph. This permits the dialogue to steer toward understanding the nature of the participants' specific circumstances but from a more abstract position. Teachers and learners worked together to understand the problems identified by the peasants, a process that Freire calls “decoding,” and to propose actions to be taken to rectify or overturn those problems.

The circles therefore have four basic elements: 1) problem posing, 2) critical dialogue, 3) solution posing, and 4) plan of action. The goal, of course, is to overcome the problems, but it is also to raise the awareness, the critical consciousness (conscientization), of the learners so as to end oppression in their individual and collective lives. The increased critical awareness enables learners to appropriate language without being colonized by it. [ 15 ] Decoding allows participants “to perceive reality differently…by broadening the horizon of perception…[It] stimulates the appearance of a new perception” that allows for the transformation of the participants' concrete reality (Ibid 115).

“Finally,” comments Freire, “true dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking…thinking which perceives reality as process, as transformation, rather than as a static activity” (Ibid, 92).

True dialogue is for Freire what civic education must be about. If civic education does not include it, then there is little hope that the future will be anything for the oppressed but a continuation of the present. “Authentic education is not carried on by ‘A’ for ‘B’ or by ‘A’ about ‘B,’ but by ‘A’ with ‘B’…” (Ibid, 93; emphases in original). Essential to such education are the experiences of the students, whatever their ages or situations. Naively conceived humanism, part and parcel of so much traditional education, tries “to create an ideal model of the ‘good man,’” but does so by leaving out “the concrete, existential, present situation of real people” (Idem). Therefore, traditional civic education, non-experiential civic education that overlooks the importance of Freire's praxis, fails for Freire to raise either good persons or good citizens.

The Brazilian government has recognized Freire's culture circles as a form of civic education and has underwritten their use for combating illiteracy among youth and adults (Souto-Manning, 2007).

Cosmopolitanism is an emerging and, because of globalization, an increasingly important topic for civic educators. In an earlier iteration, cosmopolitan education was multicultural education. According to both, good persons need to be aware of the perspectives of others and the effects their decisions have on others. While multicultural good citizens needed to think about the perspectives and plight of those living on the margins of their societies and about those whose good lives deviated from their own, good citizens in cosmopolitanism need to think, or begin to think, of themselves as “global citizens” with obligations that extend across national boundaries. Should and must civic education incorporate a global awareness and foster a cosmopolitan sensibility?

Martha Nussbaum, for one, thinks so. Nussbaum argues that our first obligation must be to all persons, regardless of race, creed, class, or border. She does not mean that we ought to forsake our commitments to our family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. She means that we ought to do nothing in our other communities or in our lives that we know to be immoral from the perspective of Kant's community of all humanity (1996, 7). We should “work to make all human beings part of our community of dialogue and concern” (Ibid, 9). Civic education should reflect that (Ibid, 11).

Philosopher Eamonn Callan, however, thinks otherwise. Callan wants to avoid a civic education, and the pursuit of justice that underlies it, “that gives pride of place to a cosmopolitan sensibility at the cost of particularistic affiliations” (1999, p. 197). In Callan's view our civic education should be constructed ideally around the concept of “liberal patriotism.” Although liberal patriotism is an “identification with a particular, historically located project of political self-rule”—that is, American liberal democracy—it nevertheless also “entails a sense of responsibility to outsiders and insiders alike….” (Ibid, 198).

Of course, the danger here is that a liberal patriot may well feel a sense of obligation or responsibility only when her country is committing the injustice. Callan points out that it is “precisely the thought that ‘we Americans’ have done these terrible things that gave impetus [during the Vietnam war] to their horror and rage” (Idem). This thought is to be contrasted with our feelings and sense of responsibility when, as Callan suggests, Soviet tanks rolled through Prague. Because, according to Callan, our politico-moral identity was not implicated in the Soviet action, we somehow do not have to have a similar sense of horror and rage. Perhaps we do not have to, but should we? Nussbaum's point is that we certainly should.

What, therefore, should civic education look like? Callan provides two examples: Should we “cultivate a civic identity in which patriotic affinities are muted or disappear altogether and a cosmopolitan ideal of ‘world citizenship’ is brought” to the forefront? Or should we cultivate a kind of patriotism “in which identification with a particular project of democratic self-rule is yet attuned to the claims of justice that both civic outsiders and insiders” will make (1999, 198). It appears that Nussbaum would favor the first, while Callan favors the second.

Perhaps these two are not the only options. In her metaphor of concentric identity circles Nussbaum argues that we ought to try to bring the outer circles of our relationships, the circle of all humanity, closer to the center, to our selves and to our loved ones (1996, 9). By doing so, we do not push out of our identities those particular relationships of significance to us. Instead, we need to take into consideration the effects that our moral and political decisions have on all of humanity. If our civic education helps us extend our sympathies, as Hume proposed, and if we could do so without paying the price of muting or eliminating our local and national affinities, then would Nussbaum and Callan agree on such a civic education?

Additionally, we need to consider that patriotism itself seems to have its own version of concentric circles. For example, Theodore Roosevelt warned against “that overexaltation of the little community at the expense of the great nation.” Here is a nod toward Roosevelt's “New Nationalism” as opposed to what he called “the patriotism of the village.” [ 16 ] If we move from the village to the nation, then can't we move from the nation to the world? As Alexander Pope wrote in “An Essay on Man”: “God loves from Whole to Parts; but human soul/Must rise from Individual to the Whole/…Friend, parent, neighbor first it will embrace/His country next, and next all human race.”

Is it ever too early to begin educating children about the cultures, customs, values, ideas, and beliefs of people from around the world? Will this undercut our commitment and even devotion to our own family, neighborhood, region, and nation? No civic education must consist exclusively either of love of one's community and a patriotic affiliation with one's country or of preparation for world citizenship—a term that implies, at the least, a world state. There ought to be a composite that will work here.

If the purpose of civic education is to generate in the young those values that underscore successful participation in our liberal democracies, then the task facing educators, whether in elementary school, secondary school, or post-secondary school, might be far easier than we imagine. There seems to be a direct correlation between years in school and an increase in tolerance of difference (Nie et al., 1996). An increase of tolerance can lead to an increase of respect for those holding divergent views. Such increases could certainly help engender a cosmopolitan sensibility. But does the number of years in school correlate with a willingness to participate in the first place? For example, the number of Americans going to college has increased dramatically over the past 50 years, yet voting in elections and political participation in general are still woefully low.

Perhaps public schools should not teach any virtue that is unrelated to the attainment of academic skills, which to some is the paramount, if not the sole, purpose of schooling. But shouldn't all students learn not just the skills but also the predispositions required to participate in the “conscious social reproduction” of our democracies, as Gutmann argues? If our democracies are important and robust, then do our citizens need such predispositions to see the value of participation? And if we say that our democracies are not robust enough, then shouldn't our students be striving to reinvigorate, or invigorate, our democratic systems? Will they need infusions of patriotism to do that? If tolerance and respect are democratic virtues, then do we fail our students when we do not tolerate or respect their desires as good persons to eschew civic participation even though this violates what we think of as the duties of good citizens?

As stated earlier, civic education in a democracy must prepare citizens to participate in and thereby perpetuate the system; at the same time, it must prepare them to challenge what they see as inequities and injustices within that system. Yet a civic education that encourages students to challenge the nature and scope of our democracies runs the risk of turning off our students and turning them away from participation. But if that civic education has offered more than simply critique, if its basis is critical thinking, which involves developing a tolerance of, if not an appreciation for, difference and divergence, as well as a willingness and even eagerness for political action, then galvanized citizens can make our systems more robust. Greater demands on our citizens, like higher expectations of our students, often lead to stronger performances. As Mill reminds us, “if circumstances allow the amount of public duty assigned him to be considerable, it makes him an educated man” (Ibid, 233).

Bibliography

Aristotle. 1988. The Politics . Everson, Stephen (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Battistoni, Richard M.. 1985. Public Schooling and the Education of Democratic Citizens . Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
–––. 1993. The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Moral Stories . New York: Simon & Schuster.
Boyte, Harry C. 2004. Everyday Politics . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bruner, Jerome. 1961. The Process of Education . New York: Vintage Books/Random House.
–––. 1917. “The Process of Education Revisited.” Phi Delta Kappan 52 (1), 18-21.
Callan, Eamonn. 1999. “A Note on Patriotism and Utopianism.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 18: 197-201.
Conover, P.J. and Searing, D. D. 2000. “A Political Socialization Perspective.” In McDonnell, Lorraine M., Timpane, P. Michael, and Benjamin, Roger (Eds.), Rediscovering the Democratic Purposes of Education . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 91-124.
Delli Carpini, M. X. and Keeter, S. 1996. Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania University Press.
Damon, William. 2001. “To Not Fade Away: Restoring Civic Identity Among the Young.” In Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti (eds.), Making Good Citizens. New Haven: Yale University Press, 122-141.
–––. 1996. Greater Expectations . New York: Free Press.
Dewey, John. 2004 [1916]. Democracy and Education , Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
–––. 1991/[1910]. How We Think . New York: Prometheus Books.
–––. 1976/[1938]. Experience and Education . New York: Collier/Macmillan.
Dewey, John and Dewey, Evelyn. 1915 . Schools of Tomorrow . New York: E. P. Dutton.
Freire, Paulo. 2006/[1970]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York: Continuum.
Galston, William. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual Review of Political Science , 4, 217-234.
–––. 1989. “Civic Education in the Liberal State.” In Nancy Rosenblum (Ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 89-102.
Kant, Immanuel. 1970. Kant's Political Writings . Reiss, Hans (ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lickona, Thomas. 1991. Educating for Character . New York: Bantam.
Macedo, Stephen. 2000. Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Society . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Madison, James, Hamilton, Alexander, and Jay, John. 1987/[1788]. The Federalist Papers . Kramnick, Isaac (Ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Mill, John Stuart. 1924. Autobiography . New York: Columbia University Press.
–––. 1972. Utilitarianism, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government . London: Everyman's Library/Dent.
Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education . 1987. 827 F. 2 nd 1062 (6 th Circuit).
Nie, Norman et al. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Niemi, Richard G. and Junn, Jane. 1998. Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nord, Warren A. 2001. “Moral Disagreement, Moral Education, and Common Ground.” In Ravitch, Diane and Viteritti, Joseph P. (Eds.) (2001). Making Good Citizens: Education and Civil Society . New Haven: Yale University Press, 142-167.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1996. “Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism.” In Cohen, J. (Ed.) For Love of Country . Boston: Beacon Press, 3-17.
Oldfield, Adrian. 1990. Citizenship and Community . New York: Routledge.
Peters, R. S. 1966. Ethics and Education . London: Allen & Unwin.
Plato. 1997. “The Laws.” The Complete Works of Plato . Saunders, Trevor J. (Trans.); Cooper, John M. (Ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
Ravitch, Diane. 2001. “Education and Democracy.” In Making Good Citizens, Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti (Eds ). New Haven: Yale University Press, 15-29.
Ravitch, Diane and Viteritti, Joseph P. (Eds.). 2001. Making Good Citizens: Education and Civil Society . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1988. The Social Contract . Cranston, Maurice (Trans.). New York: Viking Penguin.
–––. 1979. Emile or On Education . Bloom, Allan (Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Souto-Manning, Mariana. 2006. “Education for Democracy.” In E. Doyle Stevick and Bradley A. U. Levinson. Reimagining Civic Education . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 121-146.
Williams, Melissa S. 2005. “Citizenship and Functions of Multicultural Education.” In McDonough, Kevin and Feinberg, Walter (Eds.). Citizenship and Education in Liberal-Democratic States: Teaching for Cosmopolitan Values and Collective Identities . New York: Oxford University Press, 208-47.
Wolin, Sheldon. 1989. The Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Avery, P.G. 1994. “The Future of Political Participation in Civic Education.” In The Future of the Social Studies. Social Science Education Consortium, 47-52.
Barber, Benjamin. 1992. An Aristocracy of Everyone: the Politics of Education and the Future of America . New York: Ballantine Books.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. 1997. “Caring School Communities.” Educational Psychologist , 32, 137-151.
Battistoni, R. M. 2002. Civic Engagement Across the Curriculum . Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Bennett, William. The Book of Virtues . N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1993.
Benninga, Jacques. 1991. Moral, Character, and Civic Education in the Elementary School . New York: Teacher College Press.
Butts, R. Freeman. 1989. The Civic Mission in Educational Reform . Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Callan, Eamonn. 1997. Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. 2002. “From Periphery to Center: Pathways for Youth Civic Engagement in the Day-to-Day Life of Communities.” Applied Developmental Science , 6 (4), 213-220.
Dudley, R.L., & Gitelson, A.R. 2002. “Political Literacy, Civic Education, and Civic Engagement: A Return to Political Socialization?” Applied Developmental Science, , 6 (4), 175-182.
Eyre, Linda and Richard. 1993. Teaching Your Children Values . New York: Simon & Schuster.
Galston, W.A. 2001. “Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education.” Annual Review of Political Science , 4, 217-234.
Issacs, David. 1984. Character Building: A Guide for Parents and Teachers Dublin: Four Courts Press.
Coby, Barbara. 2003. Building Partnerships for Service Learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jaeger, Werner. 1945. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture . Three Volumes. Highet, Gilbert (Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kilpatrick, William. 1992. Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong . N.Y.: Simon & Schuster.
Lickona, Thomas. 1983. Raising Good Children . New York: Bantam Books.
Lisman, C. D. 1998. Toward a Civil Society: Civic Literacy and Service Learning . Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
McDonnell, L.M., Timpane, P.M., and Benjamin, R. (Eds.). 2000. Rediscovering the Democratic Purposes of Education . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Nucci, Larry. 1989. Moral Development and Character Education: A Dialogue . Berkeley: McCuthan.
Putnam, R. 1995. “Bowling Alone.” Journal of Democracy , 6, 65-78.
Rahn, W.M., & Transue, J.E. 1998. “Social Trust and Value Change: The Decline of Social Capital in American Youth, 1976-1995.” Political Psychology , 19, 545-565.
Torney-Purta, J. 2002. “The School's Role in Developing Civic Engagement: A Study of Adolescents in Twenty-eight Countries.” Applied Developmental Science , 6 (4), 203-212.
Walker, T. 2002. “Service and Political Participation: What Research Tells Us.” Applied Developmental Science , 6 (4), 183-188.
White, Patricia. 1996. Civic Virtues and Public Schooling: Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society . New York: Teachers College Press.
Wynne, Edward and Kevin Ryan. 1993. Reclaiming Our Schools: A Handbook on Teaching Character, Academics and Discipline . New York: Macmillan.
Youniss, J., & Yates, M. 1999. “Youth Service and Moral-Civic Identity: A Case for Everyday Morality.” Educational Psychology Review , 11 (4). 363 – 378.
Zukin, Cliff, Keeter, Scott, Andolina, Molly, Jenkins, Krista, Delli Carpini, Michael X. 2006. A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen . New York: Oxford University Press.
Center for Civic Education , home of the educational programs “We the People” and “Project Citizen.”
Center for Democracy and Citizenship , affiliated with the University of Minnesota and engaged in activist democracy through projects involving public work.
CIRCLE or the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement , funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York and based in Tufts University's Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, this center promotes research and projects on civic and political engagement of the young.
Civic Mission of Schools , dedicated to reviving and enhancing civic education in the public schools.
Civic Practices Network , a collaborative and nonpartisan group that brings together different organizations and perspectives to explore ways to revitalize civic participation.
Close Up Foundation , which runs a Washington DC experiential learning program for middle-school and high-school students.
Constitutional Rights Foundation , which focuses on educating America's youth about the importance of democratic participation.
National Alliance for Civic Education , an alliance of over 200 groups and individuals committed to advancing civic knowledge and engagement and to helping citizens better understand the role and value of civic education.
Public Achievement , a civic engagement initiative that seeks to involve the young in learning lessons of democracy by doing public work.

< Previous

Home > ETD > 306

All Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Critical thinking in civic education.

Allen G. Hubert , Bethel University

Teaching M.A.

Year Approved

First advisor.

Dikkers, Sean

Given the consistent call for and appreciation of the need for critical thinking in education, closer examination of leading approaches shows this curriculum is diverse in its framing, its definition, its goals, and in classroom implementation. Yet, critical thinking remains important for higher order thinking skills and tools to be effective decision makers. Hubert does a meta analysis of critical thinking definitions and implementation across the globe finding common ground and best practice in critical thinking education leading towards the current framework of Active Citizenship. How to implement it effectively remains in question and Hubert begins to outline differences and proposes a path forward to advance the research around this topic.

Degree Name

Document type.

Masterʼs thesis

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License

Recommended Citation

Hubert, A. G. (2020). Critical Thinking in Civic Education [Masterʼs thesis, Bethel University]. Spark Repository. https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/306

Since August 10, 2021

Included in

Educational Methods Commons , Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Collections
Disciplines

Advanced Search

Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

7. Teaching Civics: How to Cover Society and Politics in Contentious Times

Given the recent upheavals in American and international politics and the shifting media landscape, there has been a very understandable desire for schools to make a commitment to teaching civics and critical thinking around social and political issues.

Citizenship and civics education has long been thought a central component of education. Indeed the public school system was largely based on the idea that an informed population was necessary for a well-functioning republic. Today, the importance of civics is recognized in theory, but in practice, little time is devoted to civics , at either the primary or secondary school level.

Civics education can start in elementary school, but middle and early high school are opportune times to commit to civics. Students typically have some background knowledge of government and current affairs, and they are eager to express and develop their developing understanding and opinion. But they need encouragement, guidance, and the right setting in order to do so effectively.

Even in the calmest times, teaching civics presents teachers with difficulties:

Teachers must themselves be informed about the issues under discussion.
They must be cognizant of students’ varying backgrounds and experiences.
And they must be adept at fostering open and productive discussion around uncomfortable or controversial issues.

Below we outline some of these challenges for teaching civics and offer tips for overcoming them. The article concludes with ideas about how to conduct a discussion around the issue of the death penalty.

Teaching Controversial Issues

In our politically charged environment, it can feel risky for teachers and students alike to take on topics like social justice, the news media, and electoral politics.

The first step for teachers to take is to lower the temperature around some of these concerns. They can do this by:

Setting ground rules and norms .
Stressing the importance of good faith debate . Make it clear to students that in debate you should criticize arguments not people .
Emphasizing the need to make an effort to understand different points of view and to give people the benefit of the doubt .
Establishing a clear distinction between facts and opinions .

Very often, asking students to express their opinions and engage with their peers’ opinions brings up new questions of fact. In a discussion of the death penalty, for example, some students might argue that it is effective as a deterrent while others might claim that prison sentences can have a similar effect. That might lead to further questions over whether the violent crime rate in states with the death penalty is depressed compared to those that don’t have it.

Teachers should be comfortable with letting these conversations go where they will, at least to a certain extent. If new questions of fact arise that are difficult to answer, teachers can use this as an opportunity to model good research skills.

Managing the Classroom During Civics Discussions

Of course, there are multiple effective ways to facilitate civics discussions. But a few key elements are shared by most.

Preparation. Students will likely flounder if they do not have enough background on the issue to be discussed. Preparation is crucial and should be focused on getting the information in students hands that they will need to make good arguments. Think of this something like a briefing before a debate.

Preparation is crucial and should be focused on getting the information in students hands that they will need to make good arguments.

For example, one civics teacher leads a discussion in his social studies class each year on the Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. United States , dealing with freedom of the press and national security. He has students read the case and complete an assignment identifying the basic arguments made by the Justices in their opinions. They then break up into small groups to discuss the text. The teacher even goes so far as to require students to demonstrate a good understanding of the topic before they go on to debate it.

If students know they’ll be expected to actively use the information they’re studying, it gives them some skin in the game, and is likely to help with focus and motivation.

Modeling Debate Skills. Many students don’t have a good mental model of what productive civics discussions look like. One teacher tries to solve this problem by showing students a video from a previous year’s discussion where students engaged with each other in an exemplary way. Other teachers use the “fishbowl” method, that alternates the students who participate in the debate with those on the outside, who act as observers reflecting on the strategies and effectiveness of the participants.

Learning how to debate productively also involves learning a new language and conversation pattern. It’s useful to be explicit about these things. Teachers can model this language by stopping conversation and rephrasing what students say — or by interjecting their own view. A lot of this language can also help lower the temperature on heated conversations. (Education researcher Terry Heick offers a good list of sentence stems for civics debate here .)

Writing exercises can be an excellent way to surface students’ understanding and views — especially those students who may not yet be comfortable expressing themselves orally.

Mixing Media. Perhaps the most important skill involved in learning to be a critical thinker is learning to express yourself effectively and articulate your thoughts over a variety of different media. Writing exercises can be an excellent way to surface students’ understanding and views — especially those students who may not yet be comfortable expressing themselves orally. Quick in-class writing assignments can be a great way to begin. Writing stimulates thoughts and raises new questions that can then be asked and addressed in an open-class discussion Teachers might also experiment with audiovisual projects.

Fostering a Relaxed, Open Environment. Perhaps the most important thing is to make students comfortable trying out views and arguments.

Many teachers role-play debates — meaning students are pre-assigned to argue from a certain perspective. This both helps relax students, since their own opinions aren’t being scrutinized, and it gives them the opportunity to inhabit perspectives other than their own — a key component of critical thinking. Playacting can also be fun, of course!

Another idea is to have students switch sides in the middle of a debate. This forces them to integrate opposing viewpoints into their thinking and helps instill the habit of always considering the ways in which they might be wrong.

Example Lesson: Discussing the Death Penalty

Opening and Background. Like in any good written work or presentation, it can be good when teaching civics to begin with an attention-grabbing story or anecdote, especially something connected to current events, so that students will immediately see the relevance of the discussion.

So, with the death penalty debate, for example, you might begin by discussing the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the federal use of the death penalty, which permitted the first federal execution in 17 years .

Teachers might then survey the class to get a sense of students’ initial views and observations, before delving into more background on the court’s opinion and the dissenting opinions .

Discussion. Consider setting up formal mechanisms for debate, where students are assigned to adopt and argue for particular points of view. Then give students time in class or at home to research arguments on their own. The Death Penalty Information Center is a good place to start.

After a formal structured argument where groups of students are given a chance to present their arguments and respond to counter-arguments, it makes sense to lead a guided, metacognitive reflection on the debate. This should cover both reflection on the mechanism of the debate and questions like:

What worked in your argument? What didn’t?
How could you have better prepared?
Were you able to anticipate and respond to counter-arguments?
What did you learn about rhetoric, argumentation, using evidence, etc. that you can apply to future civics discussions (both in the classroom and outside it)?

Students should also address how their own opinions and thinking was strengthened or changed by the research and argumentation process. They should reflect on questions like:

How did your opinion change?
Did you find the issue more complicated than you thought at first?
Did you have trouble reasoning through some of the arguments?
Do you feel more secure in your opinions now?

Deepening . In this example, a civics educator might consider moving beyond the particulars of the death penalty debate to more abstract issues: like the purpose of the justice system as a whole. They can ask and address questions like:

What is justice?
What is the purpose of punishment and the justice system?
Should we interpret U.S. founding documents more in the light of the intentions of the framers or in light of contemporary moral concerns?
Do the principles behind our justice system need to be reformed? If so, should reform proceed radically or piecemeal?

Download our

teachers’ guide.

(please click here)

Sources and Resources

Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. Routledge. An argument that teaching controversial topics is crucial for building critical thinking skills and civic-mindedness. Includes lots of examples and ideas.

Feith, D. J. (2011). Teaching America: The case for civic education . Rowman & Littlefield Education. Contributions from thinkers and public figures on the importance of civics, and ideas and opportunities for educators.

Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking . Harvard University Press. A case for building argument into the curriculum. Includes examples for teachers and students.

Van Sledright, B. A., & Grant, S. G. (1994). Citizenship education and the persistent nature of classroom teaching dilemmas. Empirical study and discussion of typical challenges teachers face when teaching civics.

Privacy Overview

Civics Duty

Posted November 8, 2023
By Andrew Bauld
K-12 School Leadership
K-12 System Leadership
Moral, Civic, and Ethical Education
Teachers and Teaching

There’s a sign in Rebecca Park’s classroom that reads, “History is part of you, and you are part of history.”

For some teachers, that message might be nothing more than an inspirational quote for students, quickly read and just as quickly forgotten. But for Park, Ed.M.’17, a 12th-grade humanities teacher, it speaks to her deeper philosophy when it comes to teaching social studies, one that was instilled in her as a member of the founding cohort of the Harvard Teacher Fellows Program.

“For me, my job is to prepare students to be civically engaged, to be motivated to be engaged with both community activism and more traditional things like voting,” Park says. “But also, to deeply believe we can’t move forward without understanding the past. You can’t understand yourself if you don’t understand the past.”

Park is lucky. For the last six years she’s taught at Leaders, a small Outward Bound high school in Brooklyn, New York, that emphasizes community- based and project-based learning, and so she’s been able to bring history and civics to life for her students beyond just dates and facts in a textbook.

Students have interviewed political candidates. They’ve written policy papers on issues that directly impact them. They’ve read classic novels to learn about the past and make connections to current events.

But what’s happening is Park’s classroom is far from the norm in most American schools, where time for social studies has steadily been shrinking for years, pushed aside to focus on math and English language arts. In some states, new laws are making it illegal to even teach certain subjects related to history and civics.

Coupled with COVID-related learning loss, it’s no wonder that the latest report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) had a bleak assessment: American students are failing in social studies. naep, often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card, saw eighth-grade civics and history scores sink to new lows, with just 13% of students demonstrating proficiency in history, and 22% in civics.

“I think right now, many Americans rightly worry about the future of our democracy and our ability to work together as a nation to solve collective problems,” says Professor Martin West , who is also a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the Nation’s Report Card. “Ensuring that students have a solid foundation in history and civics is not the only thing we need to address those concerns, but it strikes me as an essential prerequisite for strengthening American democracy.”

In an opinion piece for the Boston Globe , West wrote that the “ongoing erosion of student’s history and civics knowledge should sound alarm bells across the country.”

But at a time when civic engagement has become increasingly polarized and toxic, and many educators are faced with restrictions on what they can even teach, will schools be able to heed that warning?

Not Just COVID’s Fault

In 2022, the average NAEP eighth-grade U.S. history score decreased by five points compared to 2018 and by nine points compared to 2014. Average scores also dropped across racial and ethnic groups, compared to four years before. And while scores dropped, the percentage of students who fell below the naep’s “basic” achievement level increased, rising from 34% in 2018 to 40% in 2022.

Even in high-performing districts, the gaps in student knowledge when it comes to history are shocking, educators say. Spike Sommers, Ed.M.’22, found that out firsthand this past year, his first teaching eighth-grade social studies in Brookline Public Schools, a high-achieving district less than four miles from Harvard.

During a discussion about the Thirteenth Amendment, Sommers asked his students to imagine what life was like at the time for Black Americans in the 19th century. He quickly realized that was too advanced a question for many students, who he said, “had no idea what the Civil War was, or they conflated it with the American Revolution, or thought Martin Luther King Jr., was involved with it. I realized I couldn’t assume students had a historical basis for the things we were talking about.”

It’s not just scores and knowledge that have slipped. Compared to 2018, this year also marked a decline in the percentage of eighth-grade students who reported taking a class mainly focused on U.S. history, while elementary teachers report they lack the support to teach social studies well.

To understand how we got to this point, it helps to know the history of social studies education in this country.

There’s no doubt that the pandemic had an adverse effect on student performance in history and civics scores in 2022, but, West says, “it would be a mistake to reduce the issue to the pandemic alone." While civic scores fell for the first time since the naep test began in 1998, history scores have been falling for nearly a decade and fell by a similar amount between 2014 and 2018.

“Over a much longer period, we know that there have been pretty substantial declines in instructional time elementary school teachers report devoting to history, social studies, [and] civic content, and that’s a consequence in part to an accountability system that focuses almost entirely on students’ math and reading achievement,” West says.

Researchers began to observe what they call the “social studies squeeze” in 2007, a result of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which required, by law, that states test students in reading and math, but not in other content areas. Without the pressure of high-stakes testing, schools slowly began reducing their emphasis on instructional time for other subjects, including social studies.

“I think right now, many Americans rightly worry about the future of our democracy and our ability to work together as a nation to solve collective problems. Ensuring that students have a solid foundation in history and civics … strikes me as an essential prerequisite for strengthening American democracy.” Professor Martin West

“We know when you don’t test, the time investment shrinks,” says Professor Danielle Allen , director of the Democratic Knowledge Project (DKP), an initiative of Harvard’s Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics. But, she adds, this de-emphasis goes back even further than NCLB.

“We have a 70-year story of disinvestment” in civics and history, she says, a trend that began during World War II with an increased investment in stem research, and has continued to today, with the federal government spending a little more than $50 per student for stem versus five cents for civics, according to research from the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools.

Those sidelining actions now echo across the latest naep scores, where students are unable to answer some of the most basic questions related to the foundations of the American political system or the historic events that have gotten us to where we are today. But, even if these low naep scores do serve as a wakeup call, that warning is coming at possibly the worst time.

“When we need more robust civic education with young people to help foster the democratic attitudes to safeguard democracy is at the very time when teachers feel under threat if they attempt to do so,” says Professor Meira Levinson , whose forthcoming book, Civic Contestation in Global Education , will be out in 2024.

Since 2021, 18 states have imposed bans on certain classroom discussion topics, including race and gender. Some have gone even farther. In 2021, Texas passed legislation to not only block teaching lessons about racism or sexism, but also included a provision that outlawed assignments involving communication between students and federal, state, or local officials.

These limitations are restricting what teachers can teach, especially when it comes to social studies. A recent report by the rand Corporation, Walking on Eggshells, found that one in four teachers changed their curriculum or instruction because of state and district restrictions. In July of this year, the Florida State Board of Education approved new social studies standards that included language about how “slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” Not only are students receiving a censored version of history, but they are also losing out on the chance to discuss controversial topics, a critical component in the development of their civic skills.

“Whatever we are doing in our schools, it is insufficient to meet the very real and high stakes demands of the current moment where we need more informed, more engaged, more skillful citizens with the right kinds of dispositions, not toward violence but toward using non-violent tools, to try and collectively identify real problems together,” Levinson says.

Experts have some solutions. End-of-year history and civics tests might improve results, as “research shows teachers spend more time on social studies in states that include the subject in their testing programs,” according to West. Infrastructure — meaning the policies that support teachers' instructional practices and student learning — for social studies is also severely lacking in most states and at the district level, according to another rand report. Creating more consistent frameworks and providing more support, including teacher evaluation and professional development, could go a long way in holding schools more accountable for student achievement in social studies.

But in addition to these more traditional interventions, educators and experts are also beginning to rethink what civics and history education can look like in 21st-century classrooms, and some promising changes are taking place right here in Massachusetts.

Leading the Change

It’s fitting that the birthplace of the American Revolution might serve as a model for turning the tide of failing social studies instruction.

In 2018, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education revised its history and social science standards, placing a greater emphasis on civics and introducing a new yearlong eighth-grade civics course. The legislation also passed a law that requires all students in eighth grade and high school to lead a schoolbased civics project.

West believes the state can be an example for the rest of the country in how to prepare students to better understand history and become active civic participants. It’s a good start to reversing decades of neglect when it comes to teaching history and civics, but, unfortunately, it’s targeted primarily at improving grades. There’s still a deep disillusionment amongst young people and how they feel about American democracy that extends beyond the classroom.

According to the Democratic Knowledge Project, fewer than 30% of people under 40 believe it is essential to live in a democracy, while 1 in 4 young people believe choosing leaders through free elections is unimportant.

But Allen and the project’s staff are trying to change that attitude. One of the group’s many initiatives includes an eighth-grade civics curriculum called “Civic Engagement in Our Democracy.” Co-created by the DKP along with eighth-grade educators in Cambridge Public Schools in 2019, the curriculum has since been piloted by dozens of educators around Massachusetts. In 2021, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education recognized the curriculum as one of just four year-long civics curriculum that met state standards.

“To have that civic identity is to figure out what you value, and connect that to the many roles in being part of a civic society, like voting, holding elected office, and working on local committees, and also with those outside civic institutions, like protests,” says Allen. “Our hope is to help young people reclaim one of those civic roles for themselves and reclaim an ownership stake in our democracy.”

Through project-based activities and projects, students learn about history while also developing their civic identity by reflecting on their own personal values to better understand the potential civic roles available to them.

Audrey Koble teaches eighth-grade English and civics at Brooke Roslindale Charter School in Boston. She piloted the DKP curriculum last year and says the work around student identity was powerful.

“It made it clear that you have to understand yourself to understand how a government can work for you,” Koble says.

That initial work laid the foundation for students to create impactful civic-minded projects at the end of the school year. Students attended local government board meetings and spoke with local political and business leaders, including Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. And their projects reflected ideas for real problems facing students, like one in which students proposed a new mbta subway route to address a lack of service between the Orange Line and the Green Line.

Koble says thanks to the curriculum and their final projects, she feels confident her students are headed to high school with a stronger understanding of themselves and their place in their democracy. “They know some politicians are out there with their best interests in mind, and that they have the ability to reach out to them,” Koble says. “I didn’t understand that until well into my 20s, and for them to understand that at 13 and 14 years old is incredible.”

Spike Sommers also piloted the DKP curriculum at his school in Brookline, and despite needing to fill in some gaps for students, he found the curriculum very powerful, especially in the way that it “used the social studies to make the civics understandable and contextualized, while the social studies really came alive because you see how relevant it is today.”

One unit, in particular, highlighted that relationship, where students learned about Prince Hall, a Black abolitionist leader in Boston who began a petition campaign to end slavery in 1773. Using his writings as primary sources, students went on to write their own petitions, from adding more gender-neutral bathrooms at their school to changing the school start time.

That’s not to say the curriculum or the new framework are perfect. Sommers found the end-of-year civics project particularly challenging. Even with supports built into the DKP curriculum, Sommers says students often felt overwhelmed with leading a project on their own, and even he felt buried at times trying to keep track of more than 80 unique projects, the quality of which varied widely from student to student.

Civics Education That Works

Lecturer Eric Soto-Shed recognizes the challenges of bringing impactful civics learning into classrooms. Although he’s encouraged by the work at both the state level and by organizations like the DKP, he’s working to help make it easier for teachers to assess civics skills and competencies and make sure students across classrooms can have consistent, meaningful experiences.

Along with Jack Schneider, an education professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Soto-Shed is working on a research project to identify what exactly it looks like to be an engaged citizen and to codify those skills into resources to support students and teachers .

“If we want to put curriculum into the classroom, we first need to identify the civic thinking actions we want students to do,” Soto-Shed says. “There’s a lot of good curriculum out there and research informed by philosophy and theory, but Jack and I were interested in the cognitive moves that engaged citizens do when they are participating in some kind of civic action.”

“When we need more robust civic education with young people to help foster the democratic attitudes to safeguard democracy is at the very time when teachers feel under threat if they attempt to do so.” Professor Meira Levinson

Taking inspiration from the Reading Like a Historian curriculum developed by the Stanford History Education Group, which taught students how to approach history through the same skills as professional historians, Soto-Shed is planning to do the same for civics.

In a recent research paper called Teaching Students to be Skilled Citizens , Soto-Shed and his co-authors surveyed 100 experts, including professors, elected officials, and nonprofit civic leaders, along with 500 regular citizens to come up with some main areas of civic involvement, including politically engaged activities like voting and activism, and a broader category called neighborliness, which covers interpersonal tasks like volunteering, helping others, and communicating across differences.

Soto-Shed says by identifying how people engage in these tasks, he hopes it will be easier for schools to integrate civics learning. “What we’re hoping to do with our research is help schools and states and districts be intentional about the civic skills we really need to care about, what the tasks are for students to demonstrate those skills, and how they can be taught,” he says.

And by identifying the tasks, he also thinks it will allow districts to build those civic competencies into many different parts of the curriculum through interdisciplinary lessons and activities.

“Look at volunteering, or neighborliness, those are things that can cut across curriculum,” Soto-Shed says. “I think part of the challenge is that civics is broadly defined and can live in many different parts of the curriculum, so having concrete tasks for where and how and when they are taught will help districts be more systematic about it.”

West also believes that getting creative about how to fit in civics during the school day can be another solution to improving civics learning.

“I think it’s a mistake to think about instructional time in schools as a zero-sum game where different subjects need to compete for time,” West says. One of the most obvious ways is by incorporating history and civics content into English language arts classes.

Rebecca Park does that with her students in Brooklyn. During a unit on New York City, Park had her students read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn . At the same time, they researched the historical setting of the novel to learn more about political corruption, poverty, and women’s rights, and how those issues impacted the literary characters. For another project, students read Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and connected past moral panics with today’s controversies over issues like critical race theory.

Interdisciplinary projects like these don’t just benefit history learning, either. Studies, including one conducted recently by Professor James Kim called Models of Reading Engagement, show that increasing background knowledge in social studies and science also improves student reading comprehension.

Another way teachers can make civics more exciting for students is by making it more accessible. While learning about the Constitution and the presidency are important, they can also feel very distant for students, especially eighth-graders. But learning about local government and the impact it has on their lives can feel much more relevant to students. Plus, it’s a lot easier to get a local politician to speak with students than say the president of the United States.

During the 2021 New York City Council election, Park took advantage of online learning to virtually invite nearly a dozen candidates to speak with her class. In preparation, students created rubrics about the qualities that would make the best council member and used them to interview each candidate.

“We have to balance the fundamentals they need to know with giving them an access point to make them curious to access more information rather than just starting with Article 1 of the Constitution,” says Park. “I think it’s important that civic curriculum starts with local government or local activism to give kids the motivations to get through the drier stuff.”

But teaching for student engagement doesn’t mean sacrificing learning the fundamentals of history or civics. Soto-Shed says even when teachers give students the freedom to choose any action project they want, they can still learn about and show their understanding of policies and systems of democracy by justifying their project choices.

“If a student wants to organize a protest, have them talk about why a referendum might not work, or if they want to do a social media campaign, who in the government do they think really needs to hear it,” Soto-Shed says. “Justify the action and really draw on the knowledge of the issue and of the system. That can be a powerful way to make sure students are learning the nuts and bolts while also being engaged in passionate work.”

Andrew Bauld, Ed.M.’16, is a writer based in New York City. His last piece for Ed. was on what’s lost when colleges compete .

How to Help Kids Become Skilled Citizens

An exploration of ways in which educators can instill civic identity in students

Families and Community
Informal and Out-of-School Learning
Learning Design and Instruction

Ed. Magazine

The magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Active citizenship requires a broad set of skills, new study finds

Teachers Need Our Support

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Bernie Sanders speaks in the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at Harvard Kennedy School.

Bernie Sanders sees red lights flashing for election

Up next for Supreme Court on abortion: Idaho

Panelists Daniel Ziblatt, (from left) Harvard, Manisha Sinha, Univ. of Connecticut, Gary Gerstle, Univ. of Cambridge, Carol Anderson, Emory.

Historian sees a warning for today in post-Civil War U.S.

Redrawing the civics education roadmap.

New standards prioritizes depth of knowledge over quantity of facts

Manisha Aggarwal-Schifellite

Harvard Staff Writer

State standards for civics education in the U.S. usually require that K-12 students learn hard dates and facts, like the events of Shays’ Rebellion or the details of the Stamp Act.

A group of scholars and educators wants to change that approach by prioritizing knowledge over the number of facts, and asking “driving questions” that integrate information, conceptual reasoning, and critical inquiry. In a report released today, “A Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy,” researchers at Harvard, Tufts, and other institutions laid out this strategy and other recommendations for a large-scale recommitment to a field that has seen investment decline during the last 50 years to the point where it now attracts just 1/1000 of the money spent on STEM subjects.

“We pose thematic questions that come from history and civics. The two are integrated and complementary, and they both need to be addressed,” said Peter Levine, a professor of citizenship and public affairs at Tufts University and a member of the project’s executive committee, during a conference call with the media last Thursday. “For example, what were the experiences with the British government of British colonists of indigenous Americans, of enslaved Americans, and of indentured Americans? That’s a much deeper, richer, question.”

This educational shift from “breadth to depth” is one of several plans laid out in the report, developed as a roadmap to reconsider and support civics and history education at the K-12 level. As part of an interdisciplinary and cross-ideological mission, the researchers consulted with more than 300 scholars in history, political science, and education, as well as teachers, education administrators, civics providers, students, and policymakers.

“The goal is to tell a full and complete narrative of America’s plural yet shared story,” said Danielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor.

Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard file photo

The roadmap is “unprecedented in its scale, in terms of the number and diversity of people who have been brought together … with the goal of developing a strategy to provide excellence in history and civic education for all students,” said Danielle Allen , James Bryant Conant University Professor, director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, and a corresponding principal investigator on the report. Other members of the leadership team included Jane Kamensky , Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History and Pforzheimer Foundation Director of the Schlesinger Library on the History of Women in America at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute, as well as colleagues from Tufts University, Arizona State University, iCivics, and more.

The researchers saw an urgent need for their work amid ongoing diminishing investments in the field at the national, state, and local levels, combined with growing polarization in American political culture.

“The country is very divided [and] we know from repeated high-quality surveys and studies that there’s widespread loss of confidence in our very form of government, in the American civic order. America, we think, is in this bad place in part because the American education system — not only in schools, but in higher education — has neglected the teaching of civics and American history,” said Paul Carrese, a principal investigator and founding director at the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University.

Compared with STEM education, which is funded at a rate of $50 per student per year in the U.S., civics and history education are funded at a rate of just 5 cents per student per year, and “as a consequence, we now have a citizenry and an electorate that is poorly prepared to understand our form of government and civic life, and to appreciate it and actually use it to be informed and engaged citizens,” he said.

“… what were the experiences with the British government of British colonists of indigenous Americans, of enslaved Americans, and of indentured Americans? That’s a much deeper, richer, question.” Peter Levine, Tufts University

The report was organized around seven essential themes: Civic Participation; Our Changing Landscapes; We the People; A New Government and Constitution; Institutional and Social Transformation — A Series of Reboundings; A People in the World; and A People with Contemporary Debates and Possibilities.

The group explained that these themes provide an intellectual framework for more specific pedagogical activities in the classroom. The report says that the roadmap is not a curriculum or mandate for state standards in education, but rather an ambitious guide for educators, practitioners, and policymakers to change the current approach to civics and history education at every level of government.

“The goal is to tell a full and complete narrative of America’s plural yet shared story. We’re trying to celebrate the compromises needed to make our constitutional democracy work, [and] cultivate civic honesty and patriotism, while leaving space both to love and critique this country,” said Allen.

Equally important to the style of civic inquiry is the content, and the researchers emphasized the need to weave diversity and plurality into all aspects of civics and history education, inspired by methods common in university-level civics education but not fully integrated into K-12 models. They also stressed the importance of interpersonal civic engagement and disagreement while also emphasizing civic virtues of respect, honesty, and “moving forward together,” which has become more urgent in an age of growing misinformation online.

“All of us, young people and adults, now need both digital literacy and digital mastery — strong understanding of how to sort material found online,” said Allen. Strong civics education, she added, should teach students “how to read laterally and check the sourcing of information, and how to understand the perspectives framing the provision of information and argument as well as competencies in contributing to the public sphere productively through our own use of digital tools.”

The group also published five “design challenges” articulating the structural and content dilemmas that educators may face when following the roadmap, such as simultaneously teaching the “dangers and values” of compromise in self-governance and supporting responsible student civic action.

“These are the rich, complex challenges that confront educators at all levels in civics,” said Levine. “What we do is name them and make them explicit, so that the whole community can work on them over time.”

The report marks a first milestone in a multiyear implementation plan, which the researchers want to achieve by 2030. In the coming decade, they propose three goals: to provide access to high-quality civic education to 60 million students (roughly the same number of children in U.S. schools now); to make 100,000 schools “civic ready” through resources and learning plans; and to equip 1 million teachers with the tools to implement the roadmap through professional development.

“This is a long-term project to rebuild the heart of excellence in history of civic learning,” said Allen.

The Educating for American Democracy project was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the U.S. Department of Education. Educating for American Democracy was led by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, and iCivics, the country’s largest civic education provider.

Share this article

Harvard announces return to required testing

Leading researchers cite strong evidence that testing expands opportunity

When will patients see personalized cancer vaccines?

Sooner than you may think, says researcher who recently won Sjöberg Prize for pioneering work in field

For all the other Willie Jacks

‘Reservation Dogs’ star Paulina Alexis offers behind-the-scenes glimpse of hit show, details value of Native representation

About the center for civic education.

https://educate.apsanet.org/wp-content/uploads/cropped-Untitled-design-2.png

Critical Thinking, Information Literacy and Democracy: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Tackle Misinformation and Prepare Students for Active Citizenship

Political science educator: volume 26, issue 1.

Reflections

Barbara Robertson, Georgia State University’s Perimeter College, and Tamra Ortgies-Young, Georgia State University’s Perimeter College

Recent political events highlight the fragility of democratic values and the need for the University in creating a framework for civic education becomes more urgent. Our students face the challenge of living in an information age filled with misinformation and an increasingly fragile democratic system. This mistrust of information in politics, science, and pop culture undermines public inquiry within universities and society, and it creates apathy for distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources of information. Educational institutions have been addressing this crisis for decades by equipping students with critical thinking skills (Watson et al. 2011). However, the integration of critical thinking into higher education endured debates over what constitutes critical thinking (e.g., formal vs. informal logic) and fears that teaching these skills might come at the expense of teaching academic content. Jonathan Haber debunks this myth: “Since background knowledge, including knowledge of content related to the academic disciplines, is a vital part of being a critical thinker, understanding content and thinking critically about it do not need to come into conflict” (Haber 2020). In other words, virtually all courses can provide an opportunity to build critical thinking skills.

To address these political and pedagogical issues, three faculty members–two political scientists and a philosopher working at a two-year access college within a large public, urban university–applied for and won an internal innovation team grant. Our proposal outlined an interdisciplinary module to enhance student information literacy while targeting those competencies of informed citizenship. The inspiration and rationale behind our project included:

the civic responsibility that institutions of higher education have vis-à-vis their students;
the complex world of information that students must navigate as part of their education;
the roles that critical thinking and media literacy play in enabling them to do this; and
the recognition that a wide array of courses can serve as a basis for introducing students to these skills by supplementing, rather than sacrificing, course content.

The module we created, “Critical Thinking in the Age of Misinformation,” gives faculty members the opportunity to integrate critical thinking and media literacy skills into existing core courses. It is interactive and customizable to meet the unique nature of the subject matter, the pedagogical preferences of the instructor, and the desired learning outcomes for the students. The curriculum includes six short lessons to guide students in overcoming common obstacles: evaluating the credibility of information and sources, understanding the makeup and evolution of the media environment, learning to apply reasoning, identifying and avoiding fallacies in written and oral discourse, and understanding the importance of informed citizenship.

The module teaches critical thinking skills of determining the value of information. This is achieved by differentiating between the varying quality of sources, identifying motivations for disinformation, becoming aware of common reasons for misinformation and reflecting on how bad information is a danger to democracy. We determined early on that it was essential to create a module that was engaging by appealing to student culture. The lessons are titled:

Introduction to Critical Thinking
Junk Sources
Zombie Logic
Social Mania
Conspiracy Theories

The hook inspired titles of each section carry out through each segment with interactive activities enhanced with theme-based design elements including zombies, junk food analogies, deep fakes, and viral mania.

To meet our goals of effectiveness, efficiency, and versatility we developed the cross-disciplinary learning outcomes, current content, and practice opportunities in a logical and straightforward format easily integrated into an existing course. Therefore, we worked to create an optimal student experience that meets expected learning outcomes, while reducing barriers for instructor implementation and student navigation. Due to the collaborative nature of the content development and pilot, by the end of the Fall term, we recruited 20 enthusiastic instructors to assign the lessons in Spring courses.

To achieve the goals of versatility and flexibility in design and delivery, we created the lesson content, first as PowerPoints and then using the slide content to inform the HTML version of the lessons. For this reason, faculty deploying the lessons in their courses can use the PowerPoint of any of the lessons for in-person or synchronous delivery; or opt to assign the HTML version of any of the module lessons for asynchronous delivery. Once the module is imported into their course section(s), faculty choose the number of lessons and specific assessments.

As indicated above, “Critical Thinking in the Age of Misinformation” is a single module that includes six lessons. The decision to create a single module was based on the goal of an efficient and simplified module easily integrated into an existing course. To maintain organizational simplicity, the module items in each lesson include the lesson content, the conclusion and next steps, and the different assessments for instructors to choose from.

To support learning, the lessons are written to include an instructor voice to guide the students through the content, a lesson objective, a “call to action”, a highlights of important concepts and key terms, a practice activity, and a “want to learn more” section listing additional resources.

The content of the lesson is delivered using text and short multimedia resources. The inclusion of practice activities at the end of each lesson, which are surveys with detailed feedback, allows students to practice critical thinking, media literacy skills, recall of those skills and key concepts. In support of learning, content is interactive, professionally designed, visually appealing and includes professional educational resources. For asynchronous delivery of the module, HTML design templates were used to create content for the university learning management system (Desire to Learn) to convey the same basic text, graphics, and themes used in the PowerPoint versions of each lesson. This also allowed for a seamless transition in look and feel from HTML to PowerPoint.

In addition to content development, project assessment work to date includes student attitudes and faculty feedback for first- and second-year core courses across the liberal arts and sciences that adopted the module. Student surveys show:

a rise in the number of students that view the need to apply critical thinking and media literacy skills as important,
an increased student perception of being better equipped to use critical thinking and media literacy skills, and
a student urgency to use these skills more often in their personal and professional lives than they did before completing the module.

We hope to see the positive impacts of this resource at other schools throughout the US and the world. If you are interested in creating something like this at your home institution, feel free to contact us for additional information on best practices or for more details of this project.

Haber, Jonathan. 2020 “It’s Time to Get Serious About Teaching Critical Thinking.” Inside Higher Ed , March 2, https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/02/teaching-students-think-critically-opinion.

Watson, David, Robert Hollister, Susan E. Stroud, and Elizabeth Babcock. 2011. The Engaged University: International Perspectives on Civic Engagement. New York: Routledge.

Barbara Robertson is an instructor of political science at Georgia State University’s Perimeter College.

Tamra Ortgies-Young is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia State University’s Perimeter College.

Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. All issues of the The Political Science Educator can be viewed on APSA Connects Civic Education page.

Editors: Colin Brown (Northeastern University), Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)

Submissions: [email protected]

APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Any questions or corrections to how the newsletter appears on Educate should be addressed to [email protected]

Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection

Political Science Today

Rick Hess Straight Up

Education policy maven Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute think tank offers straight talk on matters of policy, politics, research, and reform. Read more from this blog.

What’s the Point of Civics Education?

As a guy who taught high school civics back in the last century, I have some admittedly old-fashioned notions about civics instruction. For instance, it may sound archaic to some, but I still think civics should entail teaching students about our political, social, and economic systems; the rights and responsibilities of citizens; and how to engage in the political process.

Apparently, all of this puts me wildly out of step with the times. At least, that’s the obvious takeaway from a new RAND Corp. survey of K-12 teachers, examining how they think about civic and citizenship education. The national study, released earlier this month, utilized questions drawn from the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study.

The researchers found that few teachers seemed to believe that civic education requires teaching students about the core institutions or knowledge upon which civil society rests. Asked for the top three aims of civic education, just 23 percent of teachers said one of them is “promoting knowledge of social, political, and civic institutions.” Just 2 in 5 said a top-three aim was “promoting knowledge of citizens’ rights and responsibilities,” and just 11 percent thought a top-three priority was developing students’ capacity to defend their point of view.

I was gobsmacked by the results. I mean, I’ve always thought it fairly uncontroversial to assume that students need to know how judges get appointed or how Congress works if we expect them to be informed, engaged citizens. And I thought the whole “rights-and-responsibilities of citizens” thing was one place where we could all pretty much agree, at least in principle.

Yet, not even one-fourth of teachers rank knowledge of political and civic institutions as a top-three concern?! Not even half think promoting knowledge of citizens’ rights and responsibilities makes the top three?! Barely 1 in 10 think it’s important that students be able to articulate their beliefs?!

I honestly don’t know what to make of that. I’m tempted to blame the question wording or the survey instrument, except that the questions are pretty straightforward, and the survey has been used around the globe.

Some readers, I suspect, will say, “See, I knew it! This is a consequence of politicizing civics education.” As regular readers know, I have plenty of concerns along that line. Except, the evidence doesn’t really suggest that that’s a major factor. For instance, just 27 percent cited promoting environmental activism as a top-three aim, just 20 percent named “anti-racism,” and just 5 percent mentioned preparing students for future political engagement.

What teachers seem to be embracing instead is a notion of civics education that is largely content-free. The most frequently cited aim, offered by about two-thirds of teachers, is “promoting students’ critical and independent thinking.” The only other aim named by even half of teachers was “developing students’ skills and competencies in conflict resolution.”

I’m all for critical thinking. But critical thinking about what? Clearly, it’s not about social, political, or civic institutions; the rights-and-responsibilities of citizens; how to defend one’s beliefs; or how to engage in the political process. This is critical thinking as a pleasant-sounding placeholder. Thinking critically about pressing conflicts (much less resolving them) inevitably requires historical understanding and substantive knowledge. That seems to have gotten lost.

In an era when researchers have reported that just 26 percent of Americans can name the three branches of government or that only about 1 in 3 Americans can pass the nation’s citizenship test, the consequences of ignorance are glaring. We see the effects daily playing out on social media, in our tribal politics, and in performative civic leadership.

We desperately need civics and citizenship instruction that prepares students to do better. That means helping students cultivate the requisite knowledge, skills, and habits. But the first step, it would appear, is convincing teachers that this is worth doing.

The opinions expressed in Rick Hess Straight Up are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Nia Henderson Louis asks a question during AP African American Studies class at Henry Clay High School in Lexington, Ky., on March 19, 2024.

Sign Up & Sign In

America's Education News Source

Cyberattack
absenteeism
Future of High School
Artificial Intelligence
science of reading

There is Agreement on Civics Education — If You Know Where to Look

Bobb: 4 key principles should be at the core of a modern civics education, and they enjoy wide support across the political spectrum..

Untangle Your Mind!

74 Million Reasons to Give

Support The 74’s year-end campaign with a tax-exempt donation and invest in our future.

Most Popular

Nearly a third of north carolina child care providers to close within months, a cautionary ai tale: why ibm’s dazzling watson supercomputer made a lousy tutor, improving america’s schools: why it’s long past time to rethink curriculum, 800 stem students nationwide gear up to launch weather balloons on eclipse day, school success stories: here’s what happened when charters teamed up with hbcus.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Correction appended May 24

“Do schools even teach civics anymore?”

I have fielded that question many times over the years — and it is disheartening for anyone who cares deeply about civic education.

But I understand.

Civics spent decades relegated to the backseat of American education as schools placed greater emphasis on subjects such as English, science and math.

But civics is garnering renewed attention now — and with that has come some difficult conversations.

Many teachers and school leaders are struggling to navigate district- and state-level debates about social studies curricula and standards, including how to teach civics and history. How should schools approach lessons about government and politics during these extremely polarizing times? What is the best way to broach contentious current events or historical issues?

These debates have become increasingly political, with the left and the right accusing each other of trying to force specific political ideologies on classrooms.

It is time to take a step back. Seeking the fundamental aspects of a quality, 21 st century civics education does not need to be divisive.

Four key principles that should be at the core of a modern civics education. Evidence shows that these principles are educationally sound and enjoy wide support across the political spectrum.

Principle No. 1: Help students develop a foundation of knowledge

The Bill of Rights Institute works with more than 70,000 middle school and high school civics and history teachers nationwide. They understand that students need a firm understanding of their country, their government and their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

The importance of this basic civic knowledge enjoys wide support that transcends politics. As part of their Understanding America Study , researchers from the University of Southern California surveyed a representative sample of 3,751 American adults in 2022.

Researchers found several areas of broad agreement , and more than 90% of both Democrats and Republicans said they believed high school civics students should study topics such as the U.S. economy, the contributions of America’s founders, how to get involved in local politics and election integrity.

Principle No. 2: Tell America’s whole story

Learning about principles such as liberty and equality requires frank discussion of times when America failed to live up to them. Teaching students about slavery, Jim Crow laws and voting rights restrictions is not an assault on America’s principles. Instead, it teaches students that these principles must be fought for, pursued vigilantly and actively upheld.

Leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. called for America to live up to its principles as part of the abolition and civil rights movements.

USC researchers found that more than 90% of surveyed Democrats and Republicans believe high school civics students should learn about slavery and the contributions of women and people of color.

A 2022 study from More in Common , an international nonprofit that studies polarization and social divisions, found that “Republicans and Democrats share common ground about how to teach our national story but hold inaccurate ideas about what the other side believes about teaching U.S. history.”

In other words, there is broad support for teaching America’s whole story, and differences are often more perceived than real.

Principle No. 3: Build critical thinking

The USC study also found overwhelming support for helping civics students develop critical thinking skills — a powerful antidote for the rampant polarization in America today.

Curriculum that includes point-counterpoint lessons teaches students to view issues from multiple perspectives and critically analyze their own positions. This can help them learn to appreciate other viewpoints and engage civilly, even with people they may disagree with.

Civics and history teachers regularly stress viewpoint diversity in their classrooms, and they play a crucial role in helping to develop future generations of critical thinkers.

Principle No. 4: Help students develop and apply good citizenship skills

Students do not stay in the classroom forever. They need to understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

That requires learning basic civic virtues, such as integrity, responsibility and respect, and developing citizenship skills, like how to engage in civil discourse and work within their communities to solve problems.

Students should be encouraged to apply their citizenship skills just as they would their math, science or geography skills. This is basic knowledge transfer, a sound educational principle that involves being able to apply learning across different situations.

In 2022, the Bill of Rights Institute launched a nationwide civic engagement contest called MyImpact Challenge that encourages students to develop service projects in their communities and connect them to constitutional principles such as liberty, equality, and justice. Participants applied their citizenship skills to launch food drives, train their peers in disaster preparedness, remove trash from waterways and launch a poetry and art contest where teens could reflect on equality.

Civic education is vital to the future of the country. While disagreement and debate can be healthy, they should not overshadow the broad areas of agreement that exist around core principles of a civic education. Those principles benefit educators, students and communities — and point a path forward for schools.

Correction: Principle 3 is based on the USC study.

David J. Bobb, Ph.D., is president and CEO of the Bill of Rights Institute , a nonprofit organization that teaches civics and history through curricula and educational programs for teachers and students.

We want our stories to be shared as widely as possible — for free.

Please view The 74's republishing terms.

By David J. Bobb

This story first appeared at The 74 , a nonprofit news site covering education. Sign up for free newsletters from The 74 to get more like this in your inbox.

On The 74 Today

Lack of Quality Civic Education in Public Schools in the United States

By Sydney Ward

Published Spring 2022

Special thanks to Robyn Mortensen for editing and research contributions

A lack of quality civic education affects nearly every K-12 student in the United States. The content and methods of civic education curriculum focus on memorization, lecture, and textbook learning, creating an ineffective learning method for students. Teachers are met with polarized classrooms and communities, creating hesitancy to approach political topics while inequity in funding between states and districts leaves schools without consistent resources or emphasis on civics. Legislative policies and nonprofit organizations have dictated some of civic education’s most recent standards and practices, though this federal approach has not been universally adopted in local classrooms. As a result of this lack of quality civic education, marginalized students are not given the same teacher or curriculum resources their more wealthy or white peers are, which contributes to the gap in the development of civic skills. Political polarization increases among youth and pervades into adulthood. Further, knowledge gaps develop between students who had access to better civic education opportunities and those who did not. Programs like action civics and other frameworks prioritize participatory learning in K-12 schools and are effective at building civic knowledge and lifelong civic skills.

Key Takeaways+

The lack of quality education in the United States is characterized by an insufficiency of quality curriculum, deficiency of support for teachers, and a lack of legislative action.
High-quality civic studies courses, which emphasize critical thinking about current political events, increased the rate that students talk about current events with their peers by 15%. 1
Taking a civic education course has been shown to increase a person’s likelihood to vote by 3% to 6%. 2
Textbook-based and memorization-focused civic education has less than a 1% effect on voter turnout. 3
When current issue discussions become contentious, 92% of teachers will “shut down” conversations between students to avoid partisan contention. 4
Federal funding for civics is paid out from the Department of Education through competitive grants, totaling 2.15 million spent in 2021, compared to the 546 million paid out to STEM subjects in 2020. 5

Civics Education Initiative (CEI) —A civics education framework developed by the Joe Foss Institute in 2014 which prioritized the use of a civics test as a requirement for high school graduation. 6

Civic self-efficacy —A sense of confidence and competence for a situation, where a person might feel ownership and agency over a task in their community or political arena. 7

College, Career, and Civic (C3) Framework —A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” 8

Critical thinking —Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. 9

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) —A 2017 federal law which replaced NCLB. ESSA included provisions that allowed states to determine what curricula best fit their history, demographics, and localities. 10 States are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education that include descriptions of their goals, standards adoption, and testing plans. Competitive grants incentivize schools to adopt ESSA’s provisions. 11

National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) —A test utilized since the 1960s to measure reading and mathematics nationally, as well as civics and other subjects on a state or local level. The exam is congressionally mandated to report the academic achievement of students, and provides the only state-by-state comparison of learning. 12

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) —A 2001 federal law which increased federal oversight and accountability of K-12 school achievement. Special focus was placed on minority and disadvantaged groups of students, and states benefited by receiving funding when implementing provisions of the law. It required all states to report math and reading test scores in the 3rd through 8th grades, among other measures such as yearly progress and teacher qualification. 13

The Roadmap for Educating for American Democracy (EAD) —A framework developed by a collaboration of researchers, teachers, and political scientists in 2020 to organize the themes civics education should take. The document outlines seven themes of democratic education and five challenges to overcome with implementation. 14

Q: What is civic education, and how are we defining quality civic education in this brief?

A: Civic education is a curriculum centered around developing understanding of US government, constitutional systems, history, and politics. It includes instruction on how to engage with political dialogue, ask critical questions of political systems and histories, and engage with local and national governments. 15, 16, 17 Civic education promotes activities such as voting, speaking with legislators, community volunteering and other forms of civic engagement at local and national levels, and it prioritizes skills of deliberation, critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. , and real world knowledge. 18, 19, 20

Civic Engagement can involve speaking with legislators, voting, and volunteering

In this brief, quality civic education is defined as the development of political knowledge and civic skills that leads individuals to participate as an active citizen of the United States.

Q: What is the purpose of civic education?

A: The purpose of civic education is for students to build fundamental knowledge and to develop critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. skills about government. Critical thinking is most clearly defined as a practice where students ask questions about and apply content to their own lives or communities. 21 Most researchers agree that the development of political knowledge and critical thinking skills are primarily formed throughout civic education in K-12 schooling and strongly indicate civic participation in adulthood. 22, 23 High-quality civic studies courses which emphasize critical thinking about current political events increased the rate that students talk about current events with their peers by 15%. 24 Taking a civic education course has also been shown to increase a person’s likelihood to vote by 3% to 6%. 25 Thus, civic education is a pathway to continued engagement in political processes and a tool to prepare young students to participate as voters and informed citizens in adulthood. 26, 27, 28

Q: When and where is civic education taught?

A: Students in 40 states participate in required civic education courses. 29 In elementary and middle school, students learn themes of the democratic process in social studies courses, such as learning about local government through field trips and the history of the US in formal history classes. 30 These classes might include lessons on American national government, state-specific history courses, or simply general social studies. 31 In high school, civics courses might include instruction on the branches of government and their roles, Supreme Court cases, and current events, though exact content varies from state to state. 32

Though civic education exists in every school, this brief will focus on civic education in public schools. While charter and private schools also include civic education instruction, curriculum is standardized across public schools to a larger extent and all schools receive some federal funding. Additionally, more research addressing issues of inequality and access to civic education exists for public schools. 33

Q: What does civic education look like within the United States?

A: Civic education in the United States typically takes the form of students learning from a textbook, memorizing facts and dates, and taking tests. Teachers typically conduct discussions and engage in lecture learning, and no states have an experiential learning requirement. 34 Students may have a lecture-, reading-, or inquiry-based model of instruction, though these vary by grade and school. 35 In 32 states, social studies or civic courses include instruction about the Constitution, the different avenues for political participation, the components of democracy, and the setup of governmental systems. 36, 37

17 states require a civics assessment for graduation, 25 states offer service learning opportunities for credit, and 43 states require a civics course of some kind

This course design is typical across the US, although states have significant flexibility in implementation of learning measures. 38 While each state is different, 17 states require a civics assessment for graduation, 25 states offer service learning opportunities for credit, and 43 require a civics course of some kind. 39 These curriculums include instruction on forms of government, political history, and the branches of the US government, though there are variations between states. 40, 41 Of those 40 states with a civics requirement, only 9 of those states and the District of Columbia require a one-year civics course for graduation. 42

While the United States has specific classes dedicated to civic education curriculums, countries such as Germany and Belgium integrate civic education into all other subjects in school, such as math or science curriculum that includes instruction on civic duties within that field. 43 These classes might include an emphasis on climate change globally, or develop competencies in researching a diversity of scientific sources. 44 This structure contrasts to the isolated political education US students receive. 45, 46 Other countries, such as the UK and Germany, tend to center global citizen education and human rights knowledge in their civic curriculums, whereas the US does not. 48, 49

Q: How has civic education developed in the United States?

A: In the 1830s, civic education was integrated in the public school curriculum. The goal was to teach the basic building blocks of government structures and inspire loyalty to the country as part of the “common school” movement. This initiative preceded the development of public schools, when communities opened their own local schools for children. 50, 51 When schools received public funding, curriculum developed locally. Since 2000, there have been two instances of federal legislation that have named civic education within the United States. The No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB A 2001 federal law which increased federal oversight and accountability of K-12 school achievement. Special focus was placed on minority and disadvantaged groups of students, and states benefited by receiving funding when implementing provisions of the law. It required all states to report math and reading test scores in the 3rd through 8th grades, among other measures such as yearly progress and teacher qualification. ) of 2001 affected students in grades K-12, emphasizing the importance of STEM subjects and standardized testing, and cutting funding and resources away from civic education. 52 With the introduction of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) A 2017 federal law which replaced NCLB. ESSA included provisions that allowed states to determine what curricula best fit their history, demographics, and localities. States are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education that include descriptions of their goals, standards adoption, and testing plans. Competitive grants incentivize schools to adopt ESSA's provisions. in 2015, civic education was named in federal grant provisions but never had funding allocated for those programs because of a lack of congressional appropriation. 53

Q: How does the United States measure the quality of civic education?

A: There are currently no comprehensive standards for civic education across all 50 states because curriculum is left up to states and is not mandated at the federal level. The main measure of civic learning in the United States is the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) A test utilized since the 1960s to measure reading and mathematics nationally, as well as civics and other subjects on a state or local level. The exam is congressionally mandated to report the academic achievement of students, and provides the only state-by-state comparison of learning. . Unlike other standardized tests in K-12 education, the NAEP is a congressionally mandated measure of student progress, carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 54 From 1998 to the most recent scores in 2018, the NAEP has measured civic knowledge (among other topics) through a test given to a random sample of 8th grade students nationwide. 55 While a large part of civic education takes place in high schools, students nationwide are introduced to civic education topics in elementary and middle school, making the NAEP a test that measures learning across the board. The test measures “knowledge, intellectual and participatory skills, and civic dispositions” 56 and is one of the only standardized exams taken that does not measure performance on state curriculum standards and instead measures and compares student performance across the nation. 57 It features questions about political reasoning, theories of political development, and historical reasoning. 58 Additionally, the Advanced Placement (AP) US History and AP US Government exams measure understanding of social studies and civic concepts for the purpose of college readiness rather than measurement of existing K-12 learning. These exams are administered by the College Board, a nonprofit organization which measures college readiness through annual exams in 38 subjects. 59, 60 The standardized assessments yield measures that show college readiness and are often correlated with NAEP scores. 61

State curriculum as a whole is also measured to gauge effectiveness, often with scales created by independent nonprofit organizations. In a recent analysis 32 states were given a “mediocre” or “inadequate” rating of their civic education curricula based on rigor and comprehensive coverage of topics. 62 These states generally provided vague, overly organized standards that failed to focus on critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. or comprehension of important political and historical events. 63

Q: How are students performing on civic education measures?

A: In 2014, results from the NAEP A test utilized since the 1960s to measure reading and mathematics nationally, as well as civics and other subjects on a state or local level. The exam is congressionally mandated to report the academic achievement of students, and provides the only state-by-state comparison of learning. showed that 24% of students were proficient in civics learning. The 2018 NAEP results showed no significant change from the 2014 test period. 64 Civic education measures include AP US Government scores, which have decreased on average over the years. From 2019 to 2021, scores on both the AP US History and AP US Government tests have decreased. In 2019, 24% of students scored a 3 (the standard for proficiency) on the AP US History exam, and in 2021, 21% scored in that category. The AP US Government tests had a similar trend, with 30% scoring a 3 in 2019, and 27% in that same category in 2021. 65, 66 Unfortunately, no research exists to definitively highlight how civic education quality impacts these civic education measures. Because of a lack of international research presumably due to funding and logistical constraints, comparison of civic education performance to other countries is unavailable for recent years. 67

Contributing Factors

Ineffective civic curriculum.

Ineffective civic school curriculum decreases the overall quality of civic education within an academic setting due to a lack of emphasis on critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. (in the form of questioning and personal application), memorization instead of application, and an unbalanced focus on some topics over others. Content that focuses on facts rather than skill building and methods that prioritize memorization contribute to a lack of quality civic education in the United States. Many states emphasize testing and general concepts, rather than engagement with current events or critical thinking skills. This approach leaves students with knowledge that does not necessarily translate to life-long civic skills.

States consistently do not include real-world knowledge or critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. skills in their curriculum. 68, 69, 70 These civic skills include research, active listening to peers, and critical thinking that are essential to developing the ability to cast informed ballots, engage with elected officials, and voice opinions in one’s political community. 71 One example of this inconsistency is the lack of instruction around political parties and elections. An understanding of political party issues and leanings is necessary to participate in current affairs. 72 Though many states cover a wide range of political topics, 43 states require curriculum to include instruction about political parties, but only 10 states mandate the study of controversial political party events, and only 8 require study of political parties’ ideological views. 73

student filling out a multiple choice test answer sheet

Across states, curriculum standards are often vague and simple in nature. 74 Overall, most states do not put much emphasis on topics such as due process, federalism, equal protection, and comparative government, while overemphasizing mechanics like the three branches of government. 75 Standards also spend more time teaching civics in historical rather than present-day contexts. The combination of these content choices leaves students without an understanding of the nuances of Constitutional and civil rights, which matter in both assessments and in civic life. 76 With regard to voter education, while 27 state codes include some language that encourages but does not require high school voter registration education or procedures, these measures aren’t consistent. 77 States do not prioritize connection to current events when teaching civics, leaving students with a lack of relevant and relatable instruction.

Current civic education focuses on memorization, standardized testing, and lecture instruction, providing context for the “what” of civic engagement, but not the “how.” 78 Existing memorization strategies (of dates, presidents, and key historical events) and a lack of emphasis on quality writing or research standards do not teach students how to engage with real world civic competencies, such as voting or local political participation. 79 Researchers have found that textbook-based and memorization-focused civic education has less than a 1% effect on voter turnout. 80 Ninth graders who received textbook and lecture instruction without interactive civic activities scored lower on civic competency tests than those with highly interactive instruction. 81 Textbook instruction often consists of books that are too long for school year constraints and include a focus on memorization; as a result, textbooks receive reviews of a lack of engagement from teachers 70% to 90% of the time. 82 Textbook learning does not contribute to long-term civic skills, but rather reduces the quality of learning.

Textbooks and memorization have less than a 1% effect on voter turnout

As for testing, some teachers in an interview analysis viewed civics tests as something they must teach to encourage the memorization of facts and dates rather than applying content to a contemporary context. 83 Methods such as a civics test, required by 17 states to graduate from high school, do not take into account the purpose of civic education: to develop civic skills for political participation. Though a civics test is widely used, it often acts as a passing grade of a students’ ability to act as a citizen—not in exercising real-world political skills but rather in acquiring historical and governmental knowledge. 84 Testing reinforces memorization but not skills needed to act as a citizen, which contributes to a lack of quality in the lasting effects of civic education.

In a state by state comparative analysis of standards, states that score lower on curriculum tend to overlook research and deliberation skills. 85 Scholars who crafted the C3 A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” Standards for Civic Education agree that writing and research skills ensure civics lessons last beyond the classroom. 86 These standards are a framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies which focus on questioning and application of concepts learned through communication and action. 87 While writing and research standards do exist in some states, they often do not connect to current events meaningfully. Schools which do not prioritize active learning through research or deliberation miss a component of learning that can help internalize civic skills.

Lack of Support for Teachers in Political Education

28% of teachers feel support from parents to teach about elections, but 80% of teachers feel teaching about elections would be beneficial

Inadequate support from schools and the community for teachers in civic education leads to reduced education quality because teachers must decide between standard curriculum and external pressure. When teachers do not feel the support of parents, administration, or the school community, it affects the content and topics they feel comfortable teaching, thus affecting the quality of education received and leaving students without a chance to develop deliberative skills such as critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. and careful analysis. Teachers are not typically given training on how to address political or controversial events in the classroom. In qualitative analyses, researchers found a lack of consensus among teachers on the role they play as civic educators and the role of the school in the process of political socialization. 88

Furthermore, most schools currently do not offer training for teachers to navigate polarization, research on classroom management in such situations is lacking and many find a lack of administrative support. 89, 90 Many teachers lack a background in teaching about polarizing subjects as well as teaching to groups of students who may have vastly different political opinions and expressions. As a result, when current issue discussions become contentious, 92% of teachers will “shut down” conversations between students to avoid partisan contention rather than facilitating a constructive discussion. 91 With more substantial training, teachers may be able to facilitate constructive conversations about current events and politics without risking contention. 92, 93 These examples highlight inadequate support for teachers, and thus show how a lack of resources and training can facilitate less quality education, avoiding current events and application altogether.

Parental involvement, or a lack thereof, can also have a large influence on teachers’ willingness to discuss politics in the classroom. Schools tend to be non-neutral political grounds, due to community influences and the rules and logistics that govern them. 94 As a result of parental influence, only 28% of teachers think parents would be supportive if they taught about an election, even though 81% of teachers report that teaching about an election would help them meet state curriculum standards, according to a report by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. 95 On the other hand, in communities where teachers perceived consensus between parental and personal political beliefs, teachers were more confident in their decisions to teach what they did in terms of election coverage. In schools located in more polarized districts, teachers were much more cautious about making clear references to current events. 96 This reality means there is a disconnect between what teachers feel the need to teach and what they feel prepared and supported to teach in terms of civic education and current events. 97 While 98% of civic educators have reported a desire to teach the importance of civic education, that desire is often impeded by political polarization and fear of backlash from the community, as shown by a 2013 nationwide survey of teachers. 98 Without support from parents, administration and the community, teachers may avoid controversy and current events altogether.

In most cases, teachers are the primary influence on student learning and conceptualizations of citizenship and history in the United States, though an unwillingness to adopt national-level teaching standards and civic curriculum may create discrepancies in how teachers implement standards across districts. 99

Legislative and Organizational Influence on Civic Curriculum

A majority of the US’ civic education curriculum has been facilitated by national legislation and curriculum initiatives, often leaving teachers without the resources to implement them. Common Core standards for education developed in partnership between state curriculum experts to develop a consistent set of education standards in 2010. These standards placed an emphasis on “college and career readiness,” offering no mention of “civics” in the standards for states. 100 Common Core was adopted by 47 states, and has encouraged classroom instruction to function with memorization and testing methods. 101, 102 Adoption of the Common Core standards guaranteed states and schools with federal funding, which was not otherwise accessible. As a result, civics was added onto Common Core standards by teachers who made an effort to include it, not as a default. This action spurred a lack of quality civic education, because teachers became more focused on implementing standards to secure funding rather than emphasizing real-world learning experiences. 103

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) A 2017 federal law which replaced NCLB. ESSA included provisions that allowed states to determine what curricula best fit their history, demographics, and localities. States are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education that include descriptions of their goals, standards adoption, and testing plans. Competitive grants incentivize schools to adopt ESSA’s provisions. of 2015 replaced Common Core and shifted the focus of education to standards that prioritized a wider range of subjects but did not abandon the legacy of NCLB A 2001 federal law which increased federal oversight and accountability of K-12 school achievement. Special focus was placed on minority and disadvantaged groups of students, and states benefited by receiving funding when implementing provisions of the law. It required all states to report math and reading test scores in the 3rd through 8th grades, among other measures such as yearly progress and teacher qualification. ’s STEM emphasis. Funding was expanded to include competitive grants to states and districts with need for civic education funding and provide professional development opportunities to teachers. 104 ESSA opened the door to civic education advocates assisting in developing curriculum and measuring civic education as a marker of a “well rounded education.” Each year schools send in a curriculum plan to the Department of Education that, when approved, receives funding. In total, 14 states have added reference to civic education in their federally-reported ESSA plans, with 8 adopting the C3 A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” framework. However, ESSA A 2017 federal law which replaced NCLB. ESSA included provisions that allowed states to determine what curricula best fit their history, demographics, and localities. States are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education that include descriptions of their goals, standards adoption, and testing plans. Competitive grants incentivize schools to adopt ESSA’s provisions. has funded 1% or less of its intended titles and does not require civic education to be funded. 105

Each state has its own civic education standards and largely retains autonomy over them. However, teachers often do not react favorably when presented from top-down legislation determining curriculum. 106 In Utah, one school implemented new civic education changes along the lines of the C3 A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” framework that were largely ignored by teachers because of these reasons. 107 Such standards, like state based legislation and local implementations of NCLB A 2001 federal law which increased federal oversight and accountability of K-12 school achievement. Special focus was placed on minority and disadvantaged groups of students, and states benefited by receiving funding when implementing provisions of the law. It required all states to report math and reading test scores in the 3rd through 8th grades, among other measures such as yearly progress and teacher qualification. , ESSA, or Common Core, are varied within districts as they have differing willingness to implement changes. 108 State-guided civic education initiatives inspired by national legislation were viewed by teachers largely with dismissal, and districts often failed to implement them consistently. 109

Educational Funding Inequity

Funding at the federal and state levels for education prioritizes STEM courses and assessment-driven curriculum. As a result, the quality of civic education is directly impacted by resource cuts. Federal funding for civics is paid out from the Department of Education through competitive grants, totaling $2.15 million spent in 2021, compared to the $546 million paid out to STEM subjects in 2020. 110 Competitive grants are awarded based on an application and the discretion of a team of reviewers. 111 Separately, the federal government subsidizes 10.2% of state education budgets, while localities and states provide the rest. 112 The federal government spends $0.05 per pupil on civic education funding, compared to $0.50 per pupil on STEM subjects. 113 This discrepancy has a large impact on the learning resources available and time spent on instruction for civics. 114 Federal measures to boost education nationwide have neglected money for civic education. Title VI of ESSA A 2017 federal law which replaced NCLB. ESSA included provisions that allowed states to determine what curricula best fit their history, demographics, and localities. States are required to submit accountability plans to the Department of Education that include descriptions of their goals, standards adoption, and testing plans. Competitive grants incentivize schools to adopt ESSA’s provisions. allocated grant money in part to civic education but thus far has struggled to be fully funded, if at all. While Title I and other provisions have been prioritized in the federal education budget, civic education largely falls under the Title VI “Student Support and Academic Enrichment” provision, which is not prioritized as highly as other subjects. 115 States must prove expenditures up to a certain point to receive federal funds, with percentage requirements within that federal grant. 116 In 2019, the federal government spent $5 million on civic education but $3.2 billion on STEM education nationwide. 117

School funding across zip codes varies widely, as does this federal support, making it so civic education is not consistently financed. In the US today, 45% of schools’ budgets come from local property taxes. This is evidence that wealthy school districts receive more funding for their schools, while poorer districts get less. 118 Some states have diversified funding sources for education to include more than just property taxes. New Mexico, for example, routes 70% of education funding through the general state fund, mineral revenues, and other statewide sources. 119 The vast majority of states still see large disparities between districts. 120 Individual states, however, like Massachusetts, have passed bills to specifically allocate money to civics equally across districts and codify its importance. 121 The state scored among the top five in the country on civics standards as a result of boosting resources through funding and emphasis. 122 Two case studies of educational inequity between states can be used here. One example is Utah’s latest civic education reform, SB60, which would add a civics test to the curriculum. Districts with the least per pupil funding were left without staff to administer the changes and had teachers responsible for integrating that legislative push into curriculum, without adequate support. This led to less of an emphasis on the exam content and learning, and rather just getting it done which was beneficial to implementation. 123 In another example, Connecticut’s charge to adopt new standards was also met with mixed reception across districts with fewer resources. Those without curriculum coordinators saw much lower adoption than those with dedicated staff. 124 Neither provided significant financial support for such programs. These resource cuts directly negatively impact the quality of civic education possible within school districts. Further, inconsistent and varied funding measures from states and the federal government affect the resources, consistency, and quality of civic education nationwide.

Consequences

Development of knowledge gaps.

Boy in blue hoodie sitting in a classroom

A lack of quality civic education means that there are inconsistencies in how much students know about political life across the country. Overall, students who go through the civic education curriculum graduate with little to no memory of important historical and political events. For instance, 60% of college students failed to know a requirement for amendment ratification and 40% knew that Congress had the power to declare war, 125 and only one-third of adults could name all three branches of government in a recent study. 126

A lack of quality education that shows a robust view of the country’s political beliefs also contributes to the development of regional political ideologies. One study found that students are likely to have the same political preferences as the majority of their region after going through public school civic education courses. 127 When schools do not equalize the civic knowledge field, students do not have an opportunity to develop their civic knowledge or opinions prior to their eligibility to vote. One study found that rural youth from less educated households are likely to be less civically engaged, with the opposite being true for their wealthier peers with more educated parents. 128

The 15 states with the highest rigor of civic education programs—such as New Hampshire or Arkansas, which require civics classroom instruction for one semester, offer credit for community service, and require a civics exam—had a median score of 2.73 on the AP US Government exam and a median 40.7% youth voter participation rate. 129 These scores reflect a consistency in political knowledge development and corresponding action. Students who adopt habits of civic engagement in and after high school are likely to have taken extra civics courses, such as AP US History. 130 Even so, only 24% of students are scoring proficiently in the subject based on NAEP A test utilized since the 1960s to measure reading and mathematics nationally, as well as civics and other subjects on a state or local level. The exam is congressionally mandated to report the academic achievement of students, and provides the only state-by-state comparison of learning. test scores. 131 A lack of quality civic education that prioritizes active learning, application to real world events, and civic skill development creates disparities in civic knowledge across the nation.

The states with the most rigorous civic education programs had a median score of 2.73 on the AP US government exam, and 40.7% youth voter participation rate

Increase in Political Polarization

Existing civic education that does not address the development of critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. about current political events does not prepare students to engage in an ideologically polarized society. From the pre-2000s to 2016, political polarization in the United States rose by 0.48 points since the 1960s, while other countries have only risen by 0.04 points on average. This trend is illustrated by increases in affective political polarization and public distrust in government. 132, 133, 134 Civic education is not the only factor in political polarization, but political ideology begins to solidify in adolescence, meaning that the classroom environment in elementary, secondary and higher education is a catalyst for civic development. 135, 136, 137

A lack of critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. skills through adequate civic education can reinforce partisan beliefs, rather than encouraging meaningful engagement. 138 Polarization alienates students in the classroom who may have different opinions or political backgrounds, such as students who may be immigrants or minorities, from discussion. 139 As a result, students in the US have experienced a rise in bullying along political and social lines as domestic polarization has increased because of intolerant political opinions. 140 Given its current state, civic education is not consistent from school to school and is overshadowed by local or regional political attitudes, resulting in an inadequate system for reducing extreme partisanship. 141 Civic education forms a crucial basis of how students learn to engage with their government, and each other, in respectful and understanding ways. Civic education that does not address the development of critical thinking Logical, reasonable thinking carried to determine an action or belief. It often incorporates power dynamics to identify who or what might be left out of a situation, and includes ideas of trust and community. about current political events will not prepare students to engage in an ideologically polarized society. High-quality civic education has been shown to prioritize those skills and engage students across partisan lines to understanding.

Lost Civic Learning Opportunities for Marginalized Students

A lack of quality civic education creates unequal civic learning opportunities for marginalized students because of funding inequity. 142, 143 As previously discussed, marginalized students are more likely to attend schools with lower funding than their peers, leading to under-resourced teachers and a stronger reliance on testing.These deficiencies in education decrease the depth of learning through a lack of action-based curricula. As early as 4th grade, students of color in under-resourced school districts perform 3% worse than white counterparts on the National Assessment of Education Progress’ civic indicators test in part due to a lack of opportunity to meaningfully engage with civic education. 144, 145 Specifically, students who did not grow up speaking English or whose first language is not English score 37% higher than the average on the NAEP A test utilized since the 1960s to measure reading and mathematics nationally, as well as civics and other subjects on a state or local level. The exam is congressionally mandated to report the academic achievement of students, and provides the only state-by-state comparison of learning. . 146 This discrepancy is expressed in communities across the country and extends to students who have not lived in the US their entire lives. Varied funding, coupled with economic and racial disparities, creates a school environment where marginalized students are not provided the same civic education opportunities their peers might have.

All students are affected by the “civic empowerment gap,” which describes the ways that civic education impacts future civic engagement and action. 147 The racial disparities in this gap are shown in civic and political knowledge most specifically. White adults are over 11% more likely to engage in civic life than those of other races or ethnicities. 148 This “civic empowerment gap” means that marginalized students leave K-12 public education less prepared than their peers to participate in the civic process.

Best Practices

Action civics.

Youth participatory programming, often referred to as action civics, has been pioneered by groups such as Generation Citizen. The curriculum centers student agency in the classroom and encourages political action as a component of K-12 civic education. Generation Citizen is an organization that integrates classroom curriculum with real-world projects; their mission is to ensure youth are “equipped and inspired to exercise their civic power.” 149 150 They are funded by a number of foundations and organizations, primarily the Hewlett Foundation. 151 Action civics typically includes students acting as citizens through researching, planning, implementing, and reflecting on a project for local change in their civic community. 152 The program motivates students by allowing the freedom of choice when engaging with their personal community in a project or question. 153 By engaging with local communities, diversity, and student agency, action civics programs can develop civic skills that last a lifetime. 154 A central piece of action civics includes the development of student voice. 155 Student agency and voice in their own civic education is a primer for adult civic decision-making. 156 Outcomes of student voice prioritization include “agency, belonging, competence, deliberation and (civic) efficacy.” 157 Action civics is particularly powerful when civic skills are applied to communities students live within. 158 There are 6 steps outlined by researchers to develop an effective action civics program including: examination of community, issue identification, research and goal setting, power analysis, strategy development, and taking action. 159 Essentially, the programming begins with students identifying an issue pertinent to them or their class, then moves to phases of research, action-planning, implementation, and reflection. 160

Experimental trials on Generation Citizen’s programming have been conducted in which teachers opted to adopt the action civics curriculum and then measure their fall and/or spring classes level of civic knowledge, among other metrics, against a control semester of “regular” civic learning. Students who participate in an action civics course through Generation Citizen are 3.8 times more likely to speak up and participate in other classes. 161 Though action civics approaches only have a marginal effect on political knowledge, their relevance to the development of long term civic skills outweighs solely classroom instruction-based learning. 162 Generation Citizen action civics participants displayed future civic commitment 20% higher than students in typical civic education classrooms. However, specific topics of action civics projects did not necessarily indicate a change in future civic commitment. 163 Generation Citizen programs instigated a 26% difference in civic self-efficacy A sense of confidence and competence for a situation, where a person might feel ownership and agency over a task in their community or political arena. between the treatment and control groups. 164 Their programs have touched 14,025 students with their programs and launched 561 projects to improve communities nationwide. 165 This has yielded outcome data that shows 90% of students involved in the program increased their belief that they could personally make a difference and 91% believed addressing injustice is important. 166 From an impact perspective, youth-led, in-classroom curriculum like Generation Citizen’s offer students a valuable setting to learn both the mechanics of government and practice participating.

Action civics is impactful, though it does require a significant amount of resources for a teacher both in and outside the classroom. Teachers must have connections to community members, coordinate out of class projects, and manage a roster of student projects that may vary significantly and need one-on-one consulting. 167 Additionally, creating a classroom community of nonpartisanship can be difficult, particularly in a polarized political time. 168 More frameworks need to be developed to help teachers instruct students in communicating partisan ideas in a civil and productive manner, particularly on social media. Further, ensuring that proper diversity and dialogue between a myriad of stakeholders can be difficult, based on resources and geographic constraints. 169 In analysis of action civics programs, comparative data detailing student attitudes was not measured at the beginning of the program, only at the end.

Legislation

The Civics Education Initiative (CEI) A civics education framework developed by the Joe Foss Institute in 2014 which prioritized the use of a civics test as a requirement for high school graduation. has developed a large amount of civic education curricula and resources. CEI now works in tandem with the Arizona State University's Center for Political Thought and Leadership to research civic innovations. In 2014 the organization recommended that a civics exam be administered to high school seniors to assess readiness and civic knowledge to participate as a voting adult. 170, 171 The proposal included utilizing the questions on the US Citizenship and Immigration Services Civics Test given to immigrants for naturalization. 18 states passed test-based civics requirements as a result of the framework. States have varied implementations of the CEI framework, some developing their own tests after the pattern of US Citizenship and Immigration Services’, others notating test scores on students’ transcripts. 172

Separately, in 2013 the National Council on Social Studies released the College Career and Civic (C3) Framework A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” , encouraging teachers to take control over civics curriculum and emphasizing the role of action civics in the learning process. This framework included details on how to develop skills of inquiry and developing claims with research. 173 The framework integrated with Common Core standards and allowed for teachers to emphasize civics alongside the Common Core focus of reading and writing. This looked like including free-response writing to historical events and prioritizing primary documents in learning about government. 174

Young boy in a green shirt drawing a picture

In 2020, a third framework was released in partnership with civic organizations and state education offices called the Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy ( EAD A framework developed by a collaboration of researchers, teachers, and political scientists in 2020 to organize the themes civics education should take. The document outlines seven themes of democratic education and five challenges to overcome with implementation. ). This framework has not been widely implemented in schools to date. 175

While efficacy data is not available on how influential these measures were on a large scale, data is available to describe how many states implemented them. The C3 A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” framework was widely popular, with 44 states implementing changes to their state standards pursuant to its objectives, centering inquiry rather than testing. 176 Both of these frameworks were adopted across the country, with 21 states implementing both CEI A civics education framework developed by the Joe Foss Institute in 2014 which prioritized the use of a civics test as a requirement for high school graduation. and C3 A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” methods, and 21 adopting just the C3 Framework. 8% instituted only CEI testing procedures, while 5 states have not pursued any action in regard to the initiatives. 177

All of these initiatives were beneficial for learning, but lacked the training and financial support necessary to be uniformly implemented. This further contributes to a lack of quality by affecting the access to equal civic education nationwide. 178, 179 Disconnects between advocates and teachers in the classroom on content, in addition to limited classroom and funding sources given to local schools contribute to a lack of widespread adoption. Measuring the extent of implementation and teacher satisfaction with such curriculums could be a next step to understanding the effectiveness of the CEI A civics education framework developed by the Joe Foss Institute in 2014 which prioritized the use of a civics test as a requirement for high school graduation. and C3 A civic education framework developed by the National Council for Social Studies in 2013. The document focuses on civic education engaged in “(1) developing questions and planning inquiries; (2) applying disciplinary concepts and tools; (3) gathering and evaluating sources to develop claims and use evidence; and (4) communicating conclusions and taking informed action.” standards. 180

Preferred Citation: Ward, Sydney. “Lack of Quality Civic Education in Public Schools in the United States.” Ballard Brief. May 2022. www.ballardbrief.org.

Viewpoints published by Ballard Brief are not necessarily endorsed by BYU or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Sydney Ward is studying Public Relations and Civic Engagement to better understand the intersection of politics and communication. She is passionate about representation and civility in the political arena. In the future, Sydney hopes to continue building community through civic engagement.

Food Waste in the United States

Wash practices in mozambique.

IMAGES

why is Importance of Critical Thinking Skills in Education
What Education in Critical Thinking Implies Infographic
How to promote Critical Thinking Skills
Critical thinking is an essential skill for secondary students. Here's
How Can Teachers Encourage And Promote Critical Thinking Among Their
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)

VIDEO

How do I Think Critically?
Critical Thinking & Reflective Practices |Course Code 8611
Critical Thinking &Reflective Practices| Course Code 8611| Program 13| Reflective & Critical Writing
Critical Thinking and Reflective Practices
Critical Thinking and Reflective Practices
Critical Thinking and Reflective Practices

COMMENTS

What is the Goal of Civics Education? Critical Thinking, Teachers Say
It released the findings last week. Using questions derived from an international survey of educators on civic instruction, the RAND study found that a majority of respondents, 68 percent ...
Civic Education
In its broadest definition, "civic education" means all the processes that affect people's beliefs, commitments, capabilities, and actions as members or prospective members of communities. ... However much critical thinking plays in democratic character, active participation requires something more than mere skills, even thinking skills.
PDF The need for civic education in 21st-century schools
the status of civic education and found that while ... critical thinking. and . creative innovation, and which ultimately will help develop the confidence to take risks and iterate on failures.
The need for civic education in 21st-century schools
To do this, civic learning needs to be part and parcel of the current movement across many schools in America to equip young people with 21st-century skills. To date however, civic education ...
How Do Teachers Approach Civic and Citizenship Education?
Overall, U.S. teachers most commonly chose the development of students' critical thinking and their skills in conflict resolution as among the most important aims of civics and citizenship education. Nevertheless, elementary teachers were more likely than secondary teachers to say that aims focused on building students' social and emotional ...
Critical Thinking in Civic Education
To illustrate the. importance of critical thinking for a student, Lennon points out that "higher levels of thinking. can help lead to understanding and empathy for others; the lives, events, ideals and/or beliefs of. people in a pluralistic society" (p. 5). In order to develop these life long skills, Lennon paints a.
PDF We All Have Stories That Are Meaningful: Critical Civic Engagement in
He teaches, coordinates university school partnership initiatives, and develops strategies and conducts research in civic education, race equity, and community schools. Schmidt worked in youth leadership and civic engagement in schools and community organizations for 20 years before joining Loyola in 2014. Appendix A.
Civic Education
Of course, someone else could argue that our democratic elections demand the opposite: a civic education in critical thinking, if not in resistance, to expose the nature of campaigns and elections. But if you arm citizens with a civic education that teaches them to step back reflectively and critically from our democratic systems, then, so one ...
Civics that Empowers All Students
Research demonstrates that effective instruction in the We the People curriculum increases students' problem-solving, critical-thinking, decision-making, and communication skills. All are essential to academic success across disciplines and 21st-century work and civic life. ... This site is brought to you by the Center for Civic Education ...
"Critical Thinking in Civic Education" by Allen G. Hubert
Given the consistent call for and appreciation of the need for critical thinking in education, closer examination of leading approaches shows this curriculum is diverse in its framing, its definition, its goals, and in classroom implementation. Yet, critical thinking remains important for higher order thinking skills and tools to be effective decision makers.
PDF Encouraging Civic Knowledge and Engagement: Exploring Current Events
Keywords: civic engagement, civic education, current events, critical thinking, psychology. The ideal in a democratic society is that citizens are actively involved in their own governance and that such participation is based on an informed and critical reflection of political and civic issues (Branson & Quigley, 1998).
How to teach critical thinking and civics
An argument that teaching controversial topics is crucial for building critical thinking skills and civic-mindedness. Includes lots of examples and ideas. ... D. J. (2011). Teaching America: The case for civic education. Rowman & Littlefield Education. Contributions from thinkers and public figures on the importance of civics, and ideas and ...
The Importance of Civics Education
In 2018, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education revised its history and social science standards, placing a greater emphasis on civics and introducing a new yearlong eighth-grade civics course. The legislation also passed a law that requires all students in eighth grade and high school to lead a schoolbased civics project.
Report lays groundwork for recommitment to civics education
State standards for civics education in the U.S. usually require that K-12 students learn hard dates and facts, like the events of Shays' Rebellion or the details of the Stamp Act.. A group of scholars and educators wants to change that approach by prioritizing knowledge over the number of facts, and asking "driving questions" that integrate information, conceptual reasoning, and ...
The Role of Civic Education
The Role of Civic Education A Forthcoming Education Policy Task Force Position Paper from the Communitarian Network September 1998 ... effective, and responsible citizenship sometimes are called critical thinking skills. The National Standards for Civics and Government and the Civics Framework for the 1998 National Assessment of ...
Experimental study of teaching critical thinking in civic education in
Aims This investigation examines how teaching critical thinking in civic education affects the CT skills and disposition of junior high school students. Sample The participants were two classes of eighth grade students in southern Taiwan, and were distributed into experimental and control groups. Each group comprised 34 students, with the ...
PDF The Role and Impact of Critical Thinking in Democratic Education
Critical thinking is sometimes misinterpreted to refer simply to criticism, or creative thinking, or problem solving, or decision-making (Portelli 2000). While aspects of these are consistent with ...
Critical Thinking, Information Literacy and Democracy: An
the civic responsibility that institutions of higher education have vis-à-vis their students; the complex world of information that students must navigate as part of their education; the roles that critical thinking and media literacy play in enabling them to do this; and
Full article: The ongoing crisis and promise of civic education
The urgency of this crisis has been amplified by recent events across Turtle Island/North America. In the United States, the January 6th, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol Building and ongoing controversies over the teaching of the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory have placed a new spotlight on civic and history education.
What's the Point of Civics Education? (Opinion)
The researchers found that few teachers seemed to believe that civic education requires teaching students about the core institutions or knowledge upon which civil society rests. Asked for the top ...
There is Agreement on Civics Education
Principle No. 3: Build critical thinking. ... Civic education is vital to the future of the country. While disagreement and debate can be healthy, they should not overshadow the broad areas of agreement that exist around core principles of a civic education. Those principles benefit educators, students and communities — and point a path ...
Lack of Quality Civic Education in Public Schools in the United States
Critical thinking is most clearly defined as a practice where students ask questions about and apply content to their own lives or communities. 21 Most researchers agree that the development of political knowledge and critical thinking skills are primarily formed throughout civic education in K-12 schooling and strongly indicate civic ...
Increasing Civic Engagement Through Civic Education: A Critical
We argue that civic education has not met this need in Nigeria because it is uncritical, but it can be reformed through critical consciousness theory emphasizing knowledge and critical thinking ...