The civic empowerment gap is a phenomenon identified by scholars and backed by empirical research. Civics education scholar Meira Levinson (2010) identifies our nation’s “current and intentional lack of educating our youth with the skills and the knowledge to be a part of democracy [as] the ‘civic empowerment gap’” (Love, 2019, p. 71). A synthesis of research findings shows that effective civic engagement programs are most often found in middle and high income neighborhoods, adding nuance to the empowerment gap (Lin, 2015). Lower-income students are underserved by schools and are enabled less access than upper-income students to quality civics education (Jamieson, 2013). These intersectional opportunity gaps are clear in the analyses presented by the Brookings Institute in The 2018 Brown Center Report on American Education, which reveal disparities in performance on the civics NAEP exam along racial, ethnic, and class lines (Hansen, Levesque, Valant, & Quintero, 2018). In most cases, the students who are excluded from the classroom are the students from communities historically excluded from fully participating in U.S. democracy through disenfranchisement and marginalization (Hansen, Levesque, Valant, & Quintero, 2018). The experience of exclusion perpetuates the marginalization of disenfranchised students as members of the classroom and as citizens in society (Freire, 1970).
The 2018 Brown Center Report on American Education report of scores on the NAEP Civics Exam found that over the last two decades, the gap in civics education has grown along class and racial lines. The 2018 data shows that only 9% of Black students assessed were proficient in NAEP civics, while 31% of white students demonstrated proficiency. Furthermore, only 13% of “Hispanic” and “American Indian/Alaska Native” students scored as proficient (Hansen, Levesque, Valant, & Quintero, 2018). The persistent disparities in access to quality civics education are troubling, especially considering the democratic importance of civics education in the United States. The quality of civics education is correlated with lower performance on the NAEP exam for African-American and Latinx students; both communities reported spending less time discussing current events, participating in service learning and engaging in political simulations (Hansen, Levesque, Valant, & Quintero, 2018). The denial of participatory and empowering civics education for students from marginalized communities serves to perpetuate the social disenfranchisement of the communities those students represent.
When civics education is taught within the structures of an education system and democratic government that disenfranchises marginalized populations, Black, Native American, and Latinx students are excluded from the standardized civics curriculum. These racial demographics of disenfranchised students are those most lacking in “civics proficiency” as defined by the NAEP (Hansen, Levesque, Valant, & Quintero, 2018). These are the communities that most need civic leaders to advocate for full participatory representation in the United States democracy, yet these are the students who are not receiving quality civics education. Lack of civics education should not be the barrier to full civic participation in society, nor should it exclude any student from learning how to engage in social change. It should be the top priority of our nation’s civics education to empower all students as active citizens who will use their civic knowledge to advocate for social change and work towards equitable representation in a participatory democracy.
Students who are not from privileged backgrounds are arguably in the most need of civic education that will help them advocate for their communities. Students with marginalized identities are at cultural odds with their schooling environment and are most likely and most often excluded from education (Delpit, 1995; Hemphill & Blakely, 2015; hooks, 1994; Love, 2019). This exclusion can be reified through explicit systemic oppression such as the school-to-prison pipeline that is established through educational practices of discipline such as zero-tolerance policies, suspensions, and expulsions, which disproportionately impact students of color (Love, 2019). The denial of inclusivity and validation of diversity is also established through the enforcement of harmful social, cultural, and linguistic norms, such as requiring the dominant discourse of “proper” English to be spoken at all times, thereby erasing the language, culture, and identity of others from the classroom through subtractive schooling meant to assimilate students into the hegemony and power dynamics of society (Delpit, 1988, Anzaldúa, 1987; Valenzuela, 2005). The opportunity gap is a studied and accepted phenomenon of the U.S. education system; previously understood as the “achievement” gap, scholars reframed the data to suggest that schools do not serve underprivileged students as well as they serve privileged students (Love, 2019). The opportunity gap extends to civics education as many students are left out of the idea of citizenship when only dominant identities and traditional forms of participatory citizenship are represented in the curriculum.
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work,” Journal of Education, Boston University, 162, 67-92.
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
Finn, P. (1999). “A distinctly un-American ideal: An education appropriate to their station,” in Literacy with an Attitude, Ch. 13, 9-25. SUNY Press: New York.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Hansen. M., Levesque, E., Valant, J., & 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. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, Routledge.
Jamieson, K. H. (2013). The Challenges Facing Civic Education in the 21st Century. Daedalus, 142 (2), 65-83.
Jerald, C.D. (2006). School culture: The hidden curriculum. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
Journell, W. (2010). Standardizing Citizenship: The Potential Influence of State Curriculum Standards on the Civic Development of Adolescents. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(2), 351-358.
King, J. E. (1991). Dysconscious Racism: Ideology, Identity, and the Miseducation of Teachers. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133–146.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. 1st Harper Perennial ed. New York, HarperPerennial.
Kuchinich, D. (2017). “Our Political Economy Is Designed to Create Poverty and Inequality,” Nation, March 6, 2017.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3 (3), 149-164.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, M.L. (2010). “The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions,” Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard.
Love, B. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lin, A. (2013). Citizenship education in American schools and its role in developing civic engagement: a review of the research. Educational Review. Routledge.
Melamed, J. (2015). Racial capitalism. Critical Ethnic Studies, 1(1), 76-85.
Murrell, P.C. (2007). Chapters 5, 6, 7. In Race, culture, and schooling: Identities ofachievement in multicultural urban schools. New York and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Naseem-Rodriguez, N. & Swalwell, K. (2021). Chapter 5: Heroification: “The Founding Fathers”, Suffragists, and Civil Rights Movement Leaders in Social studies for a better world: an anti-oppressive approach for elementary educators. pp. 89-109. W.W. Norton & Company, inc. Norton Professional Books.
Pinar, W. (1993). Notes on understanding curriculum as a racial text. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race Identity and Representation in Education (pp. 6-70). Routledge: New York Shaull, R. (1970). “Foreword.” In Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 29-34.
The Combahee River Collective (1978). “The Combahee River Collective Statement.” Zillah Eisenstein, Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Social Feminism. Monthly Review Press, New York.
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.
Woodson, C.G. (1998). The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, N.J: Africa World Press.