Civics education is a crucial component of democracy. The connection between civics and society was a formative part of the U.S. constitutional democracy. Forms of textbooks and other civic education materials have been used in American schools since at least 1790, soon after institutions of education were established (Crittenden & Levine, 2018; McDevitt & Caton-Rosser, 2009). However, the history of civics education in the U.S. is intertwined with the United States’ educational system and society, both of which embody traditions of nationalism and cultural exclusion. Civics education in the 21st century faces distinct and complex challenges, many of which have root in the inequitable structures through which civics education is implemented (Jamieson, 2013). A critical look at why and how civics education has been developed and implemented in this country holds important lessons about how such education can be improved so that its benefits serve all students.
The Founding Fathers of the United States agreed that their vision of democracy required participants to be appropriately educated as citizens and all advocated for greater attention to civic education (Crittenden & Levine, 2018; Jamieson, 2013; Marquette & Mineshima, 2002). Thomas Jefferson dissented from the opinion that the purpose of civics education was to develop a national identity and asserted that education was the means for protecting individual rights and maintaining the power and rights of citizens (Crittenden & Levine, 2018). James Madison similarly believed that some civic education was essential for instilling a degree of virtue and civic engagement that would hold the government accountable to its citizens (Crittenden & Levine, 2018). However, their definition of who could be considered a full citizen was limited to white property-owning men, and that legacy of exclusion still holds power today (Love, 2019). Civic education that excludes certain identities and perspectives forms the foundation for a society and democracy that excludes diverse voices and votes in the democratic process.
Public and affordable civics education came to the United States in the 1830s when Horace Mann led the Common Schools Movement. Common schools aimed to educate all students “in common,” regardless of traits that would have otherwise excluded them from receiving an education, such as social status, gender, or religion (Crittenden & Levine, 2018). When Mann’s public schools were first formed, civics and morality were a central focus of education with the simple goal to create good citizens and good persons. This goal was mainly pursued through “teaching the basic mechanics of government and imbuing students with loyalty to America and her ideals” (Crittenden & Levine, 2018). The historic intention of civics education to develop students’ nationalist loyalty to American cultural ideals informs modern forms of U.S. civics education just as do the historic moral concepts of civic virtue. The substance of the morality education implemented involved “conformity to specific rules describing conduct inside and outside of school” and was heavily based on Protestant values at the expense of other value systems (Crittenden & Levine, 2018).
These forms of civic learning rely on the insertion of culture into education that prevents students from bringing their own culture and curiosity to the learning process (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Pewewardy, 1993). In contrast to that traditionally employed model, in the late 1800s influential educator John Dewey philosophized that civics education could be thought of as pragmatic democratic education that would encourage student citizens to find personal interest in learning and ultimately “share in the interests of others” so that “divisions of race, class, and ethnicity would be worn down and transcended” (Crittenden & Levine, 2018; Dewey, 1897). This form of civics education is what keeps a democracy strong and just. The focus of learning within Dewey’s framework is centered on the students’ interests and experiences, and the application of theory is emphasized as a necessary component of any effective education (Dewey, 1904). Though Dewey’s work illuminated the essence of quality education that holds meaning for learners, mainstream models of civics education did not apply Dewey’s theories or philosophies in any sort of systemic or widespread way. Within educational structures defined by “cultures of domination [that] rely on the cultivation of fear as a way to ensure obedience,” any civics education practiced will serve to reinforce systems of domination (hooks, 2001, p. 93; Freire, 1970). Conditions of fear uphold structures of domination by constructing differences as threats and prevent movement towards Dewey’s vision of civics education that transcends differences and enables connections with others (hooks, 2001).
Within cultures of domination and inequitable social context, civics education can further subjugate students with non-dominant cultural identities through uncritical presentations of Eurocentric and nationalist curricula (Anzaldúa, 1987; Love, 2019). Sociocultural subjugation and exclusion can lead to the perception of different tiers of citizenship, specifically the continuum between “full citizenship” and “second-class citizenship” conceptualized by Rosaldo (1994). Within this framework, full citizenship is a state inhabited by citizens in “favorable material circumstances” who are able to “speak about well-being, thriving, dignity, and respect” when consulted about the idea of citizenship. Second-class citizenship is a state inhabited by citizens who lack the “material conditions that give people reasonable life chances” and speak about “feeling unsafe, violated, humiliated, and invisible” when consulted about the idea of citizenship (Rosaldo, 1994, p. 402). The state of second-class citizenship is informed by social structures of power, domination, and oppression that create and maintain an inequitable social order. The conditions of education are closely linked with social conditions within which students develop senses of self-esteem, agency, and citizenship, thus perpetuation of an inequitable social status quo within civics education prevents many students from becoming full citizens and educated participatory members of U.S. democracy (Hemphill & Blakely, 2015; Jamieson, 2013; Love, 2019). Civics education should serve as a site to interrogate and understand civic society, not to conform to it uncritically.
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Press.
ASCD, (2012). College, Career, and Citizenship Education: Consensus Recommendations for College, Career, and Citizenship Readiness. ASCD.org. Alexandria, VA. http://www.ascd.org/public-policy/well-rounded-education.aspx
Carnoy, M. (2014). Globalization, educational change, and the national state. In N.P.
Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration
and contestation across cultures, Second edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Chavez, L. R. (2008). The Latino threat: Constructing immigrants, citizens, and the nation. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Chavez, L. & Hing, B. (2006). “Immigration and Assimilation in America.” In Talk of the Nation. NPR, May 24, 2006.
Cheney, R. B., & Cheney, L. (2015). Exceptional: Why the world needs a powerful America. New York, Threshold Editions.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Washington D.C.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: The
Innovation Lab Network State Framework for College, Career, and Citizenship Readiness, and Implications for State Policy. February, 2013. CCSSO.org.
Crittenden, J. and Levine, P. (2018). “Civic Education,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, vol. 54, 77-80.
Dewey, J. (1904). The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), The
Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education. Part I. (pp. 9-30). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Flores, N. (2014). Creating republican machines: Language governmentality in the United States. Linguistics and Education, 25, 1- 11.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gilbert, C. (2018). Creating Educational Destruction: A Critical Exploration of Central Neoliberal
Concepts and Their Transformative Effects on Public Education. The Educational Forum, 83(1), 60–74.
Ginwright, S.A. (2016). Hope and healing in urban education: How urban activists and teachers are reclaiming matters of the heart. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H.A. (2008) Education and the Crisis of Youth: Schooling and the Promise of Democracy, The Educational Forum, 73:1, 8-18.
Hansen. M., Levesque, E., Valant, J., and Quintero, D. (2018). The 2018 Brown Center Report
on American Education: How Well are American Students Learning? Brown Center of Education Policy at The Brookings Institution.
Hemphill. D. & Blakely, E. (2015). Language, nation, and identity in the classroom: Legacies of modernity and colonialism in schooling. Peter Lang, New York.
hooks, b. (1984) Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, Routledge.
hooks, b. (2001). All about love: new visions. HarperCollins, New York.
Jamieson, K. H. (2013). The Challenges Facing Civic Education in the 21st Century. Daedalus, 142 (2), 65-83.
Kazin, M., & McCartin, J. (Eds.). (2006). Americanism: New Perspectives on the History of an Ideal. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kenyon, T. (1995), Conservative Education Policy: Its Ideological Contradictions. Government and Opposition, 30: 198-220.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, P. & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2010) “Youth civic engagement: Normative issues,”
Chapter 5 in Lonnie Sherrod, Judith Torney-Purta, and Constance A. Flanagan (eds.) Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth, John Wiley & Sons.
Love, B. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marquette, H. & Mineshima, D. (2002) Civic Education in the United States: Lessons for the UK, Parliamentary Affairs, 55(3) 1 July 2002, 539–555.
McDevitt, M.J., and Caton-Rosser, M.S. (2009). “Deliberative Barbarians: Reconciling the Civic and the Agonistic in Democratic Education.” InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, June 2009.
Migration Policy Institute (2019). “U.S. Immigrant Population and Share over Time, 1850-Present.” https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time.
National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Civics 2010. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics (2018). The Nation’s Report Card: Civics 2018. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
National Center for Education Statistics (2020). “About NAEP.” Institute of Education Sciences: National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: The Imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
Peterson, P., & West, M. (Eds.). (2003). No Child Left Behind?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Pewewardy, C. (1993). Culturally responsible pedagogy in action: An American Indian magnet school. In E. Hollins, J. King, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations:
Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 77-92). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Quigley, C.N. (1999). “Civic Education: Recent History, Current Status, and the Future.”
Presented at the American Bar Association Symposium on Public Perception and
Understanding of the Justice System. Center for Civic Education, Washington, D.C.
Rosaldo, R. (1994). Cultural citizenship and educational democracy. Cultural Anthropology, 9(3), 402-411.
Rudalevige, A. (2006). The Politics of No Child Left Behind. Education Next. Vol. 3, No. 4.
Schweikart, L. and Dougherty, D. (2012). A Patriot’s History of the Modern World, From America’s Exceptional Ascent to the Atomic Bomb, 1898–1945. New York, Sentinel.
Shapiro, S. & Brown, C. (2018). A Look at Civics Education in the United States. American Educator. Summer 2018, 10-13.
Suissa, J. (2015) Character education and the disappearance of the political. Ethics and Education. 10(1): 105–117.
U.S. Department of Education (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Ed.gov. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa.
Valenzuela, A. (2005). Subtractive schooling, caring relations, and social capital in the schooling
of US-Mexican youth. Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools, 83-94. NY: State University of New York Press
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wiley, T.G., and Wright, W.E. (2004). Against the Undertow: Language-Minority Education
Policy and Politics in the “Age of Accountability.” Educational Policy, Vol. 18 No. 1, 142-168.
Woodring, P. (1989). The Kearns-Doyle Plan for Winning the Brain Race: Cure-All or Misdiagnosis? The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(2), 170-172.