Margaret Stimmann Branson, Center for Civic Education
Democratic citizenship has two dimensions
which are essential for a healthy democracy. One
dimension is political engagement which
encompasses both the willingness and the
capability of citizens to participate effectively in
self-rule. The second dimension consists of an
understanding of and a commitment to the
fundamental principles and processes of
democracy. Today some political theorists
contend that engagement is the more important
component, while others believe that
understanding of and commitment to democracy
are the most critical elements. Both camps,
however, agree that education is strongly related
to the maintenance and improvement of democratic rule.
The critical role of education in developing the cognitive and moral qualities of
citizenship is not a matter of recent discovery. In the Republic, Plato contended that only
those who know what good is are fit to rule, and he prescribed a long and rigorous period
of intellectual training which he thought would yield “knowledge of the whole.” In his
famous analogy, Plato asserted that this knowledge will loose the bonds that keep most
men confined in a “cave underground and allow us to ascend to the real world outside.”
Aristotle, in Politics VII, writes that the system of education which is appropriate to a
city depends on the way in which rulers and ruled are distinguished from one another.
Therefore, in our city the young must learn to obey a free government of which they will
eventually be members; and in doing so they will also be learning to govern when their
turn comes. In thus learning generally “the virtue of the good citizen, they will also be
learning the virtue of the good man,” for the virtues as he argued before (in Book III,
Chapter 9), are fundamentally the same.
In the seventeenth century the great Moravian educational reformer, John Comenius,
emphasized student participation. He insisted that a system of universal education
calibrated to the mental maturity of the student could lead to international understanding
and to finding solutions for the problems that beset mankind.
An understanding of the connection between education and democracy also can be traced
to the works of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill. Their insights
strongly influenced nineteenth and twentieth century theorists such as John Dewey and
Charles Merriam, and they continue to influence contemporary theorists such as Robert
Dahl, Amy Gutmann, and William Galston.
Although present-day scholars of democracy recognize the need for an educated
citizenry, they are aware that there is a strong tendency, especially marked in liberal
democracies, for citizens to withdraw into a private, civically-isolating life bounded by
concern for their own pressing interests, their immediate families and friends, and their
own pleasures and pains. This tendency can lead to an indifference to politics and a
diminished sense of social trust, as well as to apathy, anomie, and passivity.
The Health of Civic Life in Democracies
Much has been written about the tendency to become absorbed in private concerns and
about the health of civic life in the United States and in Western European democracies.
High level commissions have issued reports with dire diagnoses. Scholars have published
articles and books by the dozens. In fact, so much has been written about the apathy and
anomie of citizens that one might be tempted to conclude, as Chicken Little did, that the
sky is falling down for democracies. How warranted is such a fear? Obviously we cannot
review here the myriad of studies which have confirmed declining voter turnout, social
trust, and political support for the community. We can turn, however, to the very useful
assessment and summary of recent trends provided by the “Visions of Governance for the
Twenty-first Century” program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Under the
auspices of that program, a group of scholars from the Kennedy School and the Minda de
Gunzberg Center for European Studies collaborated to produce “a worldwide audit of
public support for representative democracy at the end of the twentieth century.” That
audit revealed that:
ƒOverwhelming support is given to the principle of democracy as an ideal form
of government, even among citizens living under flawed regimes
characterized by widespread abuse of human rights and civil liberties.
ƒCitizens in many established democracies give poor marks to how their
political system functions, and in particular how institutions such as
parliaments, the legal system, and the civil service work in practice.
ƒPublic support for the core institutions of representative government… has
fallen in many, but not all, established and newer democracies.
ƒIn many emerging and transitional democracies, as well as in some established
democracies, citizens are highly critical in their evaluations of how well their
regimes work. There is growing tension between ideals and reality.
ƒSocial trust is most strongly expressed not by members of voluntary
associations, or even by their most active members, but by the winners in
society, in so far as it correlates most strongly with education, satisfaction
with life, income, class, and race.
What Can Civic Education Do To Support Democracy?
What, if anything, can civic education do to encourage and sustain the positive trends
which support democracy? What can civic education do to counter or correct those which
are negative? Based on a preponderance of evidence, there is every reason to believe that
there is much civic education is doing and more that it can do. Some compelling evidence
comes from a recently completed, comprehensive review of eleven civic education
programs conducted by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). That study was designed to measure the impact of both adult and school-based
programs in four regions of the world: Africa, Asia and the Near East, Latin America and
the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The results of that
comprehensive review show that
Civic education programs for adults can have a significant, positive impact
on certain key aspects of democratic behaviors and attitudes. In particular,
civic education appears to contribute to significant increases in rates of
political participation among program participants, especially at the local
level. It also leads to more moderate, but still significant, increases in
participants’ knowledge about their political system and about democratic
structures and institutions in general, and it also tends to increase
participants’ sense of political efficacy.
Less encouraging findings from that comprehensive review of studies of adult civic
education programs were these:
ƒThere appeared to be little effect on changing democratic values, such as
political tolerance, while there appeared to be a negative impact on some
values such as trust in political institutions.
ƒMen tended to benefit more from civic education than women. Women did
show gains in a number of important areas, but civic education tended to
reinforce gender disparities in the political realm. Perhaps this finding should
have been anticipated because women generally face greater obstacles to
participation than men in terms of resources and culture barriers, particularly
in the developing world.
The USAID findings for school-based civic education tend to mirror those for adult
programs, although the impact of civics training was generally weaker and more
inconsistent for students than adults. School and family environments were found to be
powerful forces affecting the behaviors and attitudes of students.
An important caveat which emanates from the worldwide review of civic education
conducted by USAID is this:
By far the most important finding to emerge from the study, one that
applies equally to adult and school-based programs, is that course design
and the quality of instruction are critical to the success of civic education
programs. If civic education programs are well designed and well taught,
if they meet frequently, use participatory methods, stress learning by
doing, and focus on issues that have direct relevance to participants’ daily
lives, they can have significant, positive impact on democratic behaviors
and attitudes. If courses do not meet these criteria, participants gain little
from the program, and are virtually indistinguishable from the general
population on most measures.
The USAID worldwide review of civic education is impressive, but it is not the only data
on which we can draw to determine the effectiveness of civic education. A sampling of
other major studies provides evidence of the positive effects of civic education on civic
knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Civic Knowledge
Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter headed a seven-year project to assess the political
knowledge of Americans. They defined political knowledge as “the range of factual
information about politics stored in long-term memory.” Their findings are reported in
their excellent and important book What Americans Know About Politics and Why It
Matters.
Delli Carpini and Keeter’s research confirmed their critical assumption that political
knowledge matters. Using several public opinion surveys they were able to demonstrate
that “better informed citizens are more likely to participate in politics, better able to
discern, their ‘self interest’ properly understood, and better able to connect their
enlightened self interest to specific opinions about the political world.” Their study also
showed that better-informed citizens are more likely to hold opinions that are internally
consistent and stable over time and are more likely to connect their opinions to political
participation in meaningful, rational ways. Further, better informed citizens are more
likely to demonstrate other characteristics of good citizenship, such as political tolerance.
“In short, informed citizens are better citizens in a number of ways consistent with
normative and pragmatic notions of what constitutes good citizenship.”
One of the central and most disturbing findings to emerge from Delli Carpini and
Keeter’s research is the existence of sizeable gaps in knowledge found between
socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and the more advantaged. Those knowledge
gaps were most pronounced among women, blacks, and younger citizens.
Sizeable gaps in political knowledge, interest, and trust according to ethnic background
also have been found in England. A recent survey of 1,250 fifteen to sixteen year old
students in Hertfordshire pointed to increasing divisions in English social and political
life comparable to those observed in the United States.
What can be done to remedy the disparities between the information-rich and the
information-poor? Not surprisingly, Delli Carpini and Keeter cite education as a prime
corrective. Their evidence puts an added burden on the schools, the media, public
officials, political parties, and public interest groups to aim their greatest effort for
improving levels of civic knowledge at the least-informed portion of the citizenry.
Civic Skills
If citizens are to exercise their rights and discharge their responsibilities as members of
self-governing communities, they not only need to acquire a body of knowledge, they
also need to acquire the requisite intellectual and participatory skills.
Intellectual skills essential for informed, 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 Educational Progress
(NAEP) categorize these intellectual skills as identifying and describing; explaining and
analyzing; and evaluating, taking, and defending positions on public issues.
A second category of skills essential for democratic citizens are those of participation or
civic engagement. The National Standards identify participatory skills as interacting,
monitoring, and influencing. To interact is to be responsive to one’s fellow citizens. To
interact is to question, to answer, and to deliberate with civility, as well as to build
coalitions and to manage conflict in a fair, peaceful manner. Monitoring politics and
government refers to the skills citizens need to track the handling of issues by the
political process and by government. Monitoring also means the exercising of oversight
or “watchdog” functions on the part of citizens. Finally, the participatory skills of
influencing refers to the capacity to affect the processes of politics and governance, both
the formal and informal processes.
In an address to the Civitas Panamerica Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentine, Larry
Diamond, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, spoke
to the need of civic education which “must develop citizens’ capacity to make democracy
work. This includes not only routine forms of political participation but also the skills and
the propensity to organize for a better, stronger, more just, and inclusive democracy.”
Skills Diamond identified as of prime importance included the ability of citizens to “stir
one another to action and to voice their concerns in speech and writing.”
One example of a civic education program which does precisely what Diamond
recommends is Project Citizen. It was developed and published by the Center for Civic
Education. It currently is used by teachers and their students in all 50 states of the United
States of America and in more than 30 countries in different regions of the world.
Project Citizen involves early adolescent students in the identification and investigation
of important public issues in their own communities. They work cooperatively to
propose, justify, and advocate a public policy which will address a particular community
need they have identified.
A study which evaluated the effects of Project Citizen on adolescent students in Indiana,
Latvia, and Lithuania was recently published. The study measured both intellectual and
participatory skills. When students had completed their Project Citizen program they
were asked to complete two scales. Their responses then were compared to those of
students in control classes who did not participate in Project Citizen. These are the
scales used:
The first response choice for each scale is noted in parenthesis following each item using
the first response choice (e.g., “Extremely Well”).
Intellectual Skills Scale
ƒI am skilled at explaining problems in my community or country to other
people (Extremely Well).
ƒI am skilled at using facts and reason to analyze other people’s positions on
problems (Extremely Well).
ƒI am able to identify important issues of public policy (Strongly Agree).
ƒI am able to accurately describe important issues of public policy to others
(Strongly Agree).
ƒI am skilled at formulating a position on an important issue of public policy
(Strongly Agree).
ƒI am skilled at defending my positions on important issues of public policy
(Strongly Agree).
Participatory Skills Scale
ƒHow sure are you that if there were a problem in your community, you would
know what government official or branch is responsible for such a problem
(Very Sure)?
ƒHow sure are you that you could find a government official or branch
responsible for solving a particular problem in your community (Very Sure)?
ƒHow sure are you that you know the steps necessary to influence members of
your government (Very sure)?
ƒI am able to work with others to help solve important issues of public policy
(Strongly Agree).
This multi-country study found that Project Citizen had a positive and statistically
significant effect on the self-perceived civic skills of students in Indiana, Latvia, and
Lithuania. After participating in the program, students in treatment classes perceived
themselves to possess more civic skills than students in comparison classes, who were not
exposed to Project Citizen.
The potential of well-designed programs in civic education to increase students’ civic
skills also was demonstrated in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two thousand Bosnian middle
and senior high school students were surveyed. Half had participated in Project Citizen
and half had not. Participants showed statistically significant improvement in
participatory skills and political knowledge. Participants were more likely to have
contacted public officials about problems in their community, gathered information from
a variety of experts, expressed greater confidence in their knowledge about local
government, and felt more skilled at explaining problems. If given the opportunity, they
would have voted at higher rates than nonparticipating peers.
Skills of Bargaining and Compromising
Some political scientists single out teaching the skills of bargaining and compromising as
particularly important. Stephen Earl Bennett, a political scientist at the University of
Cincinnati, is among the foremost advocates of increased and improved civic education.
Bennett stresses the need for students not only to develop their own civic skills, but also
to understand how and why the skills of bargaining and compromising are employed by
political actors. He contends that:
We must increase and improve instruction about politics in public schools
if only to combat the tendency of many young Americans (and some notso-young) to disparage the bargaining and compromise at the heart of
democratic politics. How many times have you heard someone say, “Why
can’t politicians just stop bickering and work together?” Large segments
of American youth today cannot tolerate political disagreement, probably
because our educational system has not trained them how to assess an
argument on behalf of a political position. Large segments of young
people do not understand that democracy requires public officials to make
a case for their position, and then engage their political opponents in
argumentation as the opposing sides try to find some mutually agreeable
outcome. The public school system must inculcate an appreciation of how
public officials conduct the people’s business. Messy and noisy, yes—but
indispensable to democracy. Political scientists are responsible to see that
school systems provide an understanding of how democracy works.
Civic Dispositions
Civic dispositions are the traits of public and private character essential to the
maintenance and improvement of democracy. Like civic skills, civic dispositions develop
slowly over time and as a result of what one learns and experiences in the home, school,
community, and organizations of civil society. Those experiences should engender
understanding that democracy requires the responsible self governance of each
individual; one cannot exist without the other. Traits of private character such as moral
responsibility, self discipline, and respect for the worth and human dignity of every
individual are imperative. Traits of public character are no less consequential. Such traits
as public spiritedness, civility, respect for the rule of law, critical mindedness and
willingness to listen, negotiate, and compromise are indispensable to democracy’s
success.
The importance of civic dispositions, or the “habits of the heart” as Alexis de
Tocqueville called them, may be more important in the long run than the knowledge or
skills a citizen may command. Speaking on the floor of the United States Senate in favor
of the Civics Education Act, Senator Mark Hatfield emphasized the need for civic
education to concern itself with the traits of public and private character students develop.
Hatfield recalled and concurred with the words of President James Monroe who said, “the
question to be asked at the end of an educational step is not ‘what has the student
learned,’ but ‘what has the student become.’” In other words, what are the student’s
dispositions or “habits of the heart” which will prompt him to think and to act in accord
with democratic values and principles.
Although many institutions help develop citizens’ civic character, schools bear a
special and historic responsibility. Schools fulfill that responsibility through both formal
and informal education beginning in the earliest years and continuing through the entire
educational process. William Galston has identified two “general political virtues” which
he believes should be fostered in schools. The first is “a commitment to resolve disputes
through open discussion…. and to engage in public discourse. This includes a willingness
to listen seriously to a range of views that, given the diversity of liberal societies, will
include ideas the listener is bound to find strange and even obnoxious. The virtue of
political discourse also includes the willingness to set forth one’s own views intelligibly
and candidly as the bases of a politics of persuasion rather than manipulation or
coercion.”
The second disposition Galston deems essential is “the disposition to narrow the gap
(so far as is in one’s power) between principles and practices in liberal society…. For
citizens it can mean either a public appeal or quiet acts that reduce the reach of hypocrisy
in one’s immediate community.”
Civic education can and should sensitize students to disparities between the ideals
and the realities in political and social life. The National Standards for Civics and
Government specifically call for students being “able to evaluate, take, and defend
positions about issues concerning the disparities between American ideals and realities.”
Those Standards require students to describe historical and contemporary efforts to
reduce discrepancies between ideals and reality in public life, e.g. abolitionist, suffrage,
union, and civil rights movements; government programs such as Head Start; civil rights
legislation and enforcement. Equally, if not more important, is the Standards’ call for
students to explain ways in which discrepancies between the ideals of American
constitutional democracy can be reduced by individual action, as well as by social and
political action.
What evidence is there that civic education programs that are well designed and well
taught can promote dispositions supportive of democracy? One study, conducted by
Richard Brody of Stanford University, examined the effects on political tolerance of
1,351 high school students across the United States who participated in We the People…
The Citizen and the Constitution program. This program is designed by the Center for
Civic Education to promote civic competence and responsibility. It promotes students’
understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy and helps
students discover the contemporary relevance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Brody study found that students who participated in the We the People…
program were:
ƒmore politically tolerant than the average American
ƒmore self-confident and perceived fewer limits on their own political freedom,
hence they were more willing to extend those rights to others
ƒless restrictive of freedom of the press, speech, and the advocacy of radical or
unorthodox ideas
ƒmore willing to grant freedom of assembly to groups with diverse opinions
The study of senior high school students in Bosnia Herzegovina previously
mentioned also demonstrated that well-designed civic education programs can have a
positive effect on civic dispositions. That study showed the students who participated in
Project Citizen had a more active view of themselves as citizens and increased their
levels of political tolerance for various groups, such as environmentalists, women,
religious groups, human rights groups, and student groups. Participants also were more
supportive of the rule of law, of fundamental rights of expression, assembly, and
participation, and were less authoritarian.
Conclusion
Schools traditionally have been charged with insuring that students achieve basic
literacy and numeracy. We contend that schools have an equal, if not greater, obligation
to equip every student with the knowledge and the skills necessary for informed,
effective, and responsible citizenship. We also believe that schools should foster
development of those dispositions or traits of public and private character on which the
maintenance and improvement of democracy depends.
At the outset of this paper we asked if civic education could serve as an antidote for
political apathy. There is no question that it can; evidence from innumerable studies are
testimony to that fact. But if civic education programs are well designed and well taught,
if they meet frequently, use participatory methods, stress learning by doing, and focus on
issues of relevance to participants’ daily lives, they can do much more than counteract
apathy and anomie. Civic education can energize citizens by equipping them with
knowledge and skills and imbuing them with those traits of character that will bring us
closer to the realization of democracy’s ideals.
References
Center for Civic Education (2000). “Beyond Communism and War: The Effect of Civic
Education on the Democratic Attitudes and Behavior of Bosnian and Herzegovinian
Youth.” Report is available on line at www.civiced.org/research.html.
Center for Civic Education (1994). National Standards for Civics and Government.
Calabasas, CA: Center for Civic Education.
Center for Democracy and Governance (2001). Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons
Learned. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International Development.
Delli Carpini, M., and Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why
It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Diamond, Larry (1997). Cultivating Democratic Citizenship: An Address to the 1996
Civitas Panamericano Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Reprinted in The
Social Studies 88: 244-250.
Galston, William (1995). “Liberal Virtues and the Formation of Civic Character” in
Seedbeds of Virtue. Glendon, M.A. and Blankenhorn, D., eds., New York: Madison
Books.
Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jackson, A.W., and Davis, G.A. (2000). Turning Points 2000: Educating Adolescents in
the 21st Century. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
McDonnell, L.M., Timpane, P.M., and Benjamin, R. (2000). Rediscovering the
Democratic Purposes of Education. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
NAEP Civics Consensus Project (1996). Civics Framework for the 1998 National
Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, D.C.: National Assessment
Governing Board.
National Commission on Civic Renewal (1998). A Nation of Spectators: How Civic
Disengagement Weakens America and What We Can Do About It. College Park:
Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy of the University of Maryland.
Nie, Norman H., Junn, J., and Stehlik-Berry, K. (1996). Education and Democratic
Citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Niemi, Richard G., and Junn, J. (1998). Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Norris, Pippa, Ed. (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Peter, John, Halpern, D., and Morris Z. (2001). “Can Citizenship Education Generate
Social Capital? The Influence of Family, School and Curriculum on Political
Knowledge, Efficacy and Interest and On Voluntary Activities and Trust, Amongst
15-16 Year Olds.” Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American
Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 2001.
Skocpol, T., and Fiorina, M. (1999). Civic Engagement in American Democracy.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Vontz, Thomas S., Metcalf, K., and Patrick, J. (2000). Project Citizen and the
Development of Adolescent Students in Indiana, Latvia, and Lithuania. Bloomington,
IN: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education.