21 st Century Competencies and Civic Participation

21 st Century Competencies and Civic Participation Lisa García Bedolla University of California, Berkeley Education and Political Science (with courtesy) 5639 Tolman Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 Phone: (510) 643-9824 Email: lgarciab@berkeley.edu

Introduction The development of an informed and active citizenry is crucial to the function and maintenance of a democratic polity. Historically, schools in the United States have been seen as key locations for the development of that democratic citizenry. Leaders from Thomas Jefferson to Horace Mann to John Dewey have emphasized that a democratic polity cannot exist without an educated citizenry and saw the public school system as critical to the development of republican citizens (Tyack 2001). These beliefs remain strong today. Currently, forty state constitutions mention the importance of civic literacy among citizens, and 13 of them state that a central purpose of their educational system is to promote good citizenship, democracy and free government (Gibson and Levine 2003). Given that a central aspect of political engagement in a democracy is exercising the right to vote, electoral engagement and participation must be a central aspect of schools role in developing active citizens. Yet, we know little about the degree to which schools are effective in playing this role. The relationship among academic competencies, political interest, and long-term civic engagement is largely unknown. This is due to the fact that this area of interest falls between the cracks of political science and education research. Few political scientists study schools, curricula, or children s political attitudes. Similarly, even though developmental researchers recently have been at the forefront of civic 1

engagement research, they rarely look at political behavior, 1 specifically. Instead, they tend to explore youth attitudes and dispositions about civic life (Dubnick 2003, Flanagan 2003). As a result, little communication occurs across this divide. This limits our understanding of not only what roles schools are currently playing in shaping our democratic citizenry but also makes it difficult to identify ways to improve schools ability to encourage a broader spectrum of the American population to exercise their political voice within a range of electoral contexts once they reach adulthood. Background Political Science Research Since the 1960s, political scientists have focused on identifying the factors that drive individuals political engagement. Four decades of studies have shown that, at least for white Americans, socioeconomic status (SES) education, income, and occupation is the best predictor of whether or not an individual will vote or engage in nonelectoral activities such as contacting elected officials, attending public meetings, or volunteering for a political campaign (Campbell et al 1960, Verba and Nie 1972, Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). The SES model has been shown to be less effective in explaining African American, Latino, or Asian American political behavior. Scholars argue that feelings of group linked fate and social context also play an important role in explaining the political engagement of members of minority groups in the United States 1 By political behavior I mean validated measures of actual political acts, be it voting or other forms of participation, which generally have not been the focus of developmental civic engagement work. 2

(Tate 1993, Dawson 1994, García Bedolla 2005, Lee, Junn, Ramakrishnan, and Wong, forthcoming). This political behavior work has focused almost exclusively on the over-18 adult population. Studies generally have been based on cross-sectional data and have explored the effects of demographic factors, civic skills, and political attitudes on voting behavior and other forms of political participation. Other work has explored the relationship between political knowledge and candidate choice, or the impact of party identification and/or ideology on perceptions of candidates and vote choice (Achen 2002, Alvarez and Nagler 1995, Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). The process of becoming political, how that process develops through the life course beginning in childhood, and the role of schools in that process, has not been a central focus in this literature, at least since 1985, when Cook (1985: 1080) noted, childhood disappeared in political science. Political Socialization Studies Childhood was present in political science during the heyday of political socialization research. Concerns over the development of political attitudes and behaviors in children were the focus of this era of political science research. Political socialization, now often called civic engagement, became popular in the late 1950s (Hyman 1959, Easton and Hess 1962, Greenstein 1965, Hess and Torney 1967, Easton and Dennis 1969). This work analyzed the role that the family, schools, and peers played in youth political development (Jennings and Niemi 1968, Langton 1967, García 3

1973,, Jennings and Niemi 1974, Jennings and Niemi 1975, Niemi and Sobieszek 1977). Studies found that the family was an important socializing agent and that schools were less influential in the political socialization process (Jennings and Niemi 1968). By the early 1980s, this area of research had lost popularity (Cook 1985). Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest in civic engagement, with studies looking at youth political engagement from a developmental standpoint and in terms of the roles played by peers, schools, the media, and other socializing agents (Achen 2002, Andolina et al. 2003, Atkins and Hart 2003, Balsano 2005, Dudley and Gitelson 2003, Flanagan 2003, Flanagan et al. 2007, 2009, Gibson and Levine 2003, Kahne, Chi and Middaugh 2006, Kahne and Westheimer 2003, López and Marcelo 2008, Nasir and Kirshner 2003, Pasek et al. 2008, Sherrod 2003, Torney-Purta, Barber, and Wilkenfeld 2007, Westheimer and Kahne 2003, 2004, Zaff, Malanchuk and Eccles 2008). This work has found schools to have a greater impact on socialization than previously thought, and has pointed to the importance of parents and neighborhoods in the socialization process (Kahne and Sporte 2008, Niemi and Junn 1998). Scholars also have focused on the effects service learning experiences can have on voluntarism, academic success, and future civic commitments (Billig 2000, Hart et al. 2007, Kahne and Westheimer 1996, Metz and Youniss 2003, Reinders and Youniss 2006, Schmidt, Shumov and Kackar 2007). Renewed Interest in Civic Engagement 4

This resurgence in research on civic engagement stems from a concern expressed by academics, foundations, and political pundits at the turn of the 21 st century about decreasing levels of political engagement within the United States, particularly among youth. The publication of Robert Putnam s Bowling Alone reflected one influential voice in what had become a cacophony of commentators lamenting the state of American democracy and civic life. In response to these concerns, in 2002 the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), in consultation with the Corporation for National and Community Service, convened a series of meetings to consult a range of experts about the stated of civic education and civic engagement in the United States. The resulting report, The Civic Mission of Schools, summarizes this work and lays out six best practices for organizing a civic education curriculum: 1. Provide instruction in government, history, law, and democracy. Formal instruction in U.S. government, history, and democracy increases civic knowledge. This content should not be taught as rote facts, but rather in a way that connects government structures to students lives 2. Incorporate discussion of current local, national, and international issues and events into the classroom, particularly those that young people view as important to their lives. This also has been found to improve critical thinking, an important 21 st century competency. 5

3. Design and implement programs that provide students with the opportunity to apply what they learn through performing community service that is linked to the formal curriculum and classroom instruction. This service also needs to be explicitly linked to the civic realm in order to have the greatest impact on civic engagement. 4. Offer extracurricular activities that provide opportunities for young people to get involved in their schools or communities. Long term studies of Americans show that those who participate in extracurricular activities remain more engaged in their communities even decades later. 5. Encourage student participation in school governance. A long tradition of research suggests that giving students more opportunities to participate in the management of their own classrooms and schools builds their civic skills and attitudes. 6. Encourage students participation in simulations of democratic processes and procedures. Recent evidence suggests that simulations of voting, trials, legislative deliberation, and diplomacy in schools may lead to heightened political knowledge and interest. Following up on this seminal work, the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools (CMS) decided to turn its focus toward exploring the relationship between civic education and 21st century competencies. They, along with the American Bar Association s Division for Public Education, commissioned a study to explore this question. Entitled Paths to 21st Century Competencies through Civic Education Classrooms: An Analysis of Survey Results from Ninth-Graders, the study uses data from the 1999 6

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study to explore this question (Torney-Purta and Wilkenfeld 2009). CIVED was a cross-national study of approximately 90,000 adolescents aged 14 conducted in 28 countries. The analysis in this report is based on a nationally representative sample of 2,811 ninth graders attending public and private schools in the United States. The study consisted of a test of civic knowledge and a survey, both of which took about two hours to complete and were administered during class. The test and survey findings were then supplemented with surveys from the students teachers and administrators. Torney-Purta and Wilkenfeld adapted their definition of 21 st century competencies from the framework laid out by the Partnership for 21 st Century Skills. Torney-Purta and Wilkenfeld (2009: 11) define these skills to include: Basic skills in reading and mathematics Skills in interpreting information (i.e., critical thinking and problem solving) including literacy in understanding the information and opinions presented by the media Knowledge of the economic system Global awareness Support for activities associated with good citizenship (i.e., obeying the law and voting) Skills in working with others, including the ability to clearly express opinions, collaborative group skills and the ability to work in culturally diverse teams The ability to be productive (i.e., a sense of personal responsibility to work hard, efficaciously and ethically) Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy Creativity and innovation 7

In their strategic discussions, the CMS had hypothesized that media literacy, economic and civic knowledge, a sense of social responsibility, experience cooperating with diverse groups, and global awareness all would be relevant to student experiences with civic education. As a result, these factors were a central focus of the analysis of the IEA data. Since the IEA data had already been collected, analyzing it with this focus in mind seemed to be a good way to study the development of these skills in an integrated way and with a large sample of youth. Yet, since the instrument had not been designed with this particular analysis in mind, it did not include the entire range of competencies listed above. Specifically, the survey did not measure math skills, ICT literacy or creativity/innovation. Although Torny-Purta and Wilkenfeld agree with the Partnership for 21 st Century Skills holistic framework, in their study they believed it appropriate to make analytical distinctions (and therefore examine separately) what they saw as knowledgebased competencies, attitudinal competencies, and behaviors. Their knowledge measures included: (1) economic knowledge (including concepts such as taxes, labor unions, pricing, multinational corporations, free markets, and the economic effect of closing a polluting factory); and (2) media literacy (such as interpreting editorial cartoons, drawing inferences based on a newspaper article, and making distinctions between fact and opinion). 8

On the attitudinal side, students were asked whether they had positive opinions about ethnic minorities, their feelings of efficacy discussing issues, and whether they believed norms of social responsibility such as working hard, obeying the law, voting, and paying attention to issues covered in the media were important. In terms of their behaviors, respondents were asked if they followed the news, had experiences at school with diversity, cooperation, and learning about other countries, and how many more years of schooling they expected to complete. Given the Civic Mission of Schools finding that more democratic, open classrooms were the most effective in teaching civic skills, Torney-Purta and Wilkenfeld (2009: 17) also asked students to report on their perceptions of the environment in their civic education classrooms, either lecture-based, interactive, or both. This resulted in students having four potential types of civic education experiences: neither one nor the other, lecture dominant, mainly interactive, or both. They find the largest number of students (852 or 33% of the sample) experienced a combination of both. More troubling, the next highest number of students, 27 percent (N=686), report received no formal civic education instruction. That group is followed in proportion by those who said they had only lecture-style instruction (21%, N=547) and those who described their experience as interactive (18%, N=460). Torney-Purta and Wilkenfeld (2009: 18) also find important differences across groups in terms of the types of opportunities for civic education students have. Black and immigrant students were the least likely to receive interactive instruction and students from low SES backgrounds were more likely than high-ses students to report 9

experiencing neither kind of civic education. Overall, they find that there is a relationship between civic educational experiences and the development of all the 21 st century skills they examined. A combination of lecture-style instruction and interactive learning opportunities seems to be the most effective method of developing these competencies in students. In addition, they find that school SES is positively related to school competencies, with higher SES schools having a positive impact on the development of these skills independent of the individual-level impacts. But, importantly, interactive classrooms were found to have a positive impact on students outcomes regardless of school SES. In their conclusions, Torney-Purta and Wilkenfeld (2009) note that different teaching approaches seem to have different impacts on particular competencies within different student populations. For example, traditional lecture-style teaching is good for knowledge development in low SES schools but also seems to decrease students feelings of efficacy. In contrast, traditional teaching in high SES schools was found to increase students efficacy. This highlights the importance of considering the analytical distinctiveness of these different types of skills and always keeping in mind the important role that class, race, gender, and social context play in students educational outcomes. Although the Torney-Purta Wilkenfeld study uses a unique and rich data set to explore the development of these competencies in a holistic way, their analysis must be interpreted with caution. First, the study was not originally designed to test these questions, making it less than optimal as an instrument. Second, it depends on reports 10

of students perceptions of their classrooms, with no individual verification of their accuracy, either from classroom observations or the data from the school s teachers and administrators. Recent analyses of survey validated versus self report of voter contact and turnout again has raised the question of individuals ability to accurately recall events in surveys, even when those events occurred within the past month (Micheslson and Garcia Bedolla 2010). Michelson and García Bedolla (2010) also found these errors of recall were not randomly distributed, particularly in terms of gender (men were found to be more likely to overreport having voted) and SES (higher SES respondents were more likely to report accurately). This raises general questions about the use of self-reported survey information without any sort of external validation. Third, the IEA study breaks out the analysis by race, but the samples for each of the different racial/ethnic groups are quite small (African Americans are 12.8% of the sample, N=360; Latinos are 13.7%, N=385; Asian Americans are 3.9%, N=110; Multiracial 3.5%, N=980; Foreign Born are 10.5%, N=295). These percentages do not reflect the demographic distribution of the current U.S. student population, which is 17.2% African American, 19.8% Latino and 4.6% Asian American. 2 While it is likely that the authors used weighted samples in their analysis in order to make them representative, using weights when the underlying samples are so small is likely to result in significant measurement error and, likely, some misrepresentation of actual 2 It should be noted that this survey was conducted in 1999, and therefore the demographic distribution of the student population has changed since then. But, while the magnitude of the difference is likely less than it seems using 2010, African American and Latino students remain underrepresented in this sample. 11

reality. Given their findings regarding the importance of both student and school SES, and the strong relationship that exists between SES and race in the United States, it is likely that those class-based findings also reflect important differences that exist in opportunities for these kinds of civic education experiences across racial groups, an issue that is not addressed sufficiently in their analysis. Finally, the study does use hierarchical linear modeling in order to isolate individual-level versus school-based effects. Yet, this analysis is based on cross sectional data a snapshot in time. As such, the data can show correlations among factors, but cannot determine the direction of causality. It is entirely possible that students who have these competencies are more likely to interpret their civic education classrooms as interactive, or, at the very least, to remember that they were exposed to civics lessons in the first place (versus the large number of students that report no instruction on this topic). In addition, even though the analysis controls for the average school climate in terms of type of instruction, it cannot control for the many other factors at play within the school and classroom contexts that can reasonably be expected to influence students educational outcomes (Douglas 2009, Gregory, Skiba and Noguera 2010). A recent study that attempts to address these methodological concerns is Kahne and Sporte s (2008) analysis of the relationship between civic education and civic commitments among urban youth in Chicago s public schools. As they point out, most studies that attempt to link classroom practices to civic commitments are relatively small, do not entail random assignment, and do not control for prior civic 12

commitments. To address these issues, Kahne and Sporte (2008) do rely on survey data, but they limit their analysis to students for whom they have baseline data from 2003, so they are able to see change over time when they conduct their more in-depth analysis of their 2005 data. In their analysis, they control for classroom civic learning opportunities in multiple subject areas, such as English, social studies, and history (including an open climate, service learning, and many of the other CMS best practices), school supports for students academic and social development, student involvement in extracurricular activities, their demographic and individual characteristics, neighborhood and family civic context, and students prior civic commitments. They find neighborhood and family contexts, particularly whether parents discussed current events with children, were strongly related to students civic commitments. Conversely, demographic characteristics and school supports had little impact. Civic learning opportunities and engaging in service learning had a sizable impact; that effect was larger than that of any other measure in the study, including students prior commitments to civic participation, and remains robust even after controlling for neighborhood, family, and school characteristics. They argue that this suggests schools appear able to help lessen the participatory inequality that exists in our civic and political life (Kahne and Sporte 2008: 755). This finding is especially important given studies showing that these civic learning opportunities are not evenly distributed across the student population. Low-income students, students of color, and low-performing students have all been found to have less access to these types of 13

educational opportunities (Kahne and Middaugh 2008, Torney-Puerta and Wilkenfeld 2009). In relation to the question of 21 st century skills, particularly more academicallyoriented skills, Kahne and Sporte s work suggests that the factors that foment civic commitments are not necessarily the same as those that foster academic success. In fact, they may be contradictory to one another. Although peer support for academic achievement was found to improve civic commitments slightly, parental emphasis on academic success was found to have a negative impact on students civic orientations. Thus, although their work shows that classroom opportunities can enhance students feelings of civic agency, social relatedness, and political and moral understandings, their findings also suggest mainstream educational reform agendas may be insufficient in relation to student civic development, given their overwhelming emphasis on academic, rather than civic, skill development (Kahne and Sporte 2008: 756). Considerations for Future Research The educational and political research conducted to date suggests that students civic outcomes and their development of 21 st century competencies are influenced by the intersection of their family, peer, neighborhood, school, and classroom contexts. Isolating the effects of each of these strands of influence is methodologically and analytically challenging. Most scholars of political socialization agree that it is a process that begins at a fairly young age and evolves over the life course. This makes a longitudinal approach likely the best way to pinpoint the effects of school experiences 14

versus family or neighborhood influences. In addition, we know that neighborhoods in the United States are highly stratified both racially and socioeconomically, and that schools in low-income neighborhoods tend to have less resources and be less likely to engage in the kind of open, discursive curriculum that has been found to be most effective for civic education. Thus, it may be necessary to randomly assign students to particular kinds of civic education classrooms in order to isolate the curricular effects from the contextual ones. Randomized approaches are considered controversial in education research, making them difficult to implement within school settings. But, given the complexity of the social environment within which students are embedded, a randomized, longitudinal research design may be the only way to truly determine the impact of a particular classroom experience and how that effect evolves over time. Another methodological question raised by this research area is the validity of focusing on respondents attitudes and intentions in order to predict future behavior. Almost all the studies discussed here use respondents stated commitments as a foundation for assumptions about their adult political behavior. Although the psychological literature has long established a link among attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Ajzen 2001), the fact of the matter is that we cannot be certain the respondents intentions will play themselves out, particularly since these respondents are young adolescents. And, similar to the question of misreporting of information on surveys, we have no way of knowing whether the differences between intention and action are randomly distributed. This may be a particularly important issue with regard to voting. Since stating an intention to vote is understood by the respondent to 15

be the socially desirable answer, it is plausible to assume that respondents may be likely to overstate their intention to vote because of that social norm. Given we do not know how large that overreport may be, studies need to be cautious in assuming that stated intentions will always translate into actual behaviors in the future. The social complexity of American society should also lead us to consider the exercise the citizenship within the United States, how the conferral of basic rights has varied historically among different populations, and how that variance may affect the structure and function of civic education today. Studies of the political engagement of African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans have shown that ethnic identity and feelings of linked fate affect how those groups engage politically (Dawson, 1994, García Bedolla 2005, Lee, Junn, Ramakrishnan and Wong, forthcoming, Tate 1993). Also, in his comparison of public opinion among African Americans and Whites, Michael Dawson (2000) shows that whites and blacks continue to have very different understandings of how American government functions and the degree to which government institutions are responsive to the interests of all Americans. Given these findings, it is highly likely that the type of discussion that will occur about government institutions, democracy, and citizenship within a predominantly African American or Latino urban classroom and a high-income suburban predominantly white classroom will be very different. The CMS recommendations emphasize that these discussions must be relevant to the students lives, which is related to this point. But, I would argue that they also must take into consideration differential feelings of political voice and government fairness within marginal communities if the long-term goal is to foster a sense of efficacy among 16

these youth. The Kahne and Sporte (2008) study is encouraging in this regard, given they were focusing on mostly low-income urban students of color in Chicago. But, little of the civic engagement work looks explicitly at how issues of race and different historical experiences within communities of color must influence how schools teach democracy if the goal of that teaching is to foster a more inclusive polity. This question of how to teach democracy is critical when considering how democracy, and civic participation, is defined within a particular social and racial context. Studies have shown that members of different racial groups tend to participate in politics differently. In a recent study of civic engagement in California, Latinos and African Americans were found to be more likely than whites to attend meetings. Blacks also were more likely than whites to attend rallies. Yet, whites were overrepresented in their participation in every other form of activity included in the study voting, contacting elected officials, signing petitions, contributing money to campaigns, or working for a political party (Ramakrishnan and Baldassare 2004). Other work has shown Latinos to be more likely than whites to engage in political protest. García Bedolla (2009) argues this is due to the limitations placed on Mexican American and Puerto Rican communities ability to exercise voting rights prior to the 1970s. These differences are important in terms of the levels of voice available to different groups in society. But they are also important when considering classroom practice, again because they suggest that the types of activities that will foment class discussion may be different, and that the kinds of political activities in which students will choose to engage may also very significantly. 17

It is imperative for American democracy that we prepare our youth to be productive, active, and engaged citizens. Political voice currently is not equally distributed across the U.S. population. Those Americans who are white, wealthy, and older have a differential say in the people that represent them and the policies that our government institutions pursue. Given the demographic changes occurring within U.S. society, it is important that this differential begin to decrease. The studies discussed here raise the possibility that schools can play a critical role in altering this inequality and fostering the civic development of our nation s youth. But, that development will not occur simply as a result of higher academic achievement. This work suggests that, to be effective, civic education must be open, democratic, and focused directly on civic outcomes. Only that way can we be certain that our educational system is cultivating this critical 21 st century competency. 18

References Achen, C. 2002. Parental Socialization and Rational Party Identification. Political Behavior 24(2): 151-170. Ajzen, I. 2001. Nature and Operation of Attitudes. American Review of Psychology 52: 27-58. Alvarez, R. M. and J. Nagler. 1995. Voter Choice in 1992: Economics, Issues and Anger. American Journal of Political Science 39(3): 714-744. Atkins, R. and D. Hart. 2003. Neighborhoods, Adults, and the Development of Civic Identity in Urban Youth. Applied Developmental Science 7(3): 156-164. Balsano, A. B. 2005. Youth Civic Engagement in the United States: Understanding and Addressing the Impact of Social Impediments on Positive Youth and Community Development. Applied Developmental Science 9(4): 188-201. Billig, S. H. 2000. Research on K-12 School-Based Service-Learning: The Evidence Builds. Phi Delta Kappan 81(9): 658-664. Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cook, T. E. 1985. The Bear Market in Political Socialization and the Costs of Misunderstood Psychological Theories. American Political Science Review 79(4): 1079-1093. Dawson, M. 2000. Black Visions: the Roots of Contemporary African American Political Ideologies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dawson, M. 1993. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Delli Carpini, M. X. and S. Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Douglas, K. 2009. Sharpening Our Focus in Measuring Classroom Instruction. Educational Researcher 38(7): 518-521. Dubnick, M. J. 2003. Nurturing Civic Lives: Developmental Perspectives on Civic Education Introduction. PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2) 253-255. 19

Dudley, R. L. and A. R. Gitelson. 2003. Civic Education, Civic Engagement, and Youth Civic Development. PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2): 263-280. Easton, D. and J. Dennis. 1967. The Child s Acquisition of Regime Norms: Political Efficacy. American Political Science Review 61: 25-38. Easton, D. and J. Dennis. 1967. The Child s Image of Government. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 361: 40-57. Easton, D. and R. Hess. 1962. The Child s Political World. Midwest Journal of Political Science. 6: 229-246. Feldman, L., J. Pasek, D. Romer, and K. H. Jamieson. 2007. Identifying Best Practices in Civic Education: Lessons from the Student Voices Program. American Journal of Education 114: 75-100. Flanagan, C. 2003. Developmental Roots of Political Engagement. PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2): 257-261. Flanagan, C. 2003. Trust, Identity, and Civic Hope. Applied Developmental Science 7(3): 165-171. Flanagan, C. A., P. Cumsille, S. Gill, and L. S. Gallay. 2007. School and Community Climates and Civic Commitments: Patterns for Ethnic Minority and Majority Students. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(2): 421-431. Flanagan, C. A., A. K. Syvertsen, S. Gill, L. S. Gallay, and P. Cumsille. 2009. Ethnic Awareness, Prejudice, and Civic Commitments in Four Ethnic Groups of American Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38: 500-518. García, F. C. 1973. Political Socialization of Chicano Children: A Comparative Study with Anglos in California Schools. New York: Praeger. García Bedolla, L. 2009. Latino Politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity. García Bedolla, L. 2005. Fluid Borders: Latino Power, Identity, and Politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gibson, C. and P. Levine. 2003. The Civic Mission of Schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation. Greenstein, F. 1965. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press. 20

Gregory, A., R. J. Skiba, and P. A. Noguera. 2010. The Achievement gap and the Discipline Gap. Educational Researcher 39(1): 59-68. Hart, D., T. M. Donnelly, J. Youniss, and R. Atkins. 2007. High School Community Service as a Predictor of Adult Voting and Volunteering. American Educational Research Journal 44(1): 197-219. Hess, R. D. and J. V. Torney. 1967. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine. Hyman, H. H. 1959. Political Socialization: A Study in the Psychology of Political Behavior. Glencoe: The Free Press. Jennings, K. M, and R. G. Niemi. 1968. The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to Child. American Political Science Review 62(1): 169-184. Jennings, K. M. and R. G. Niemi. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kahne, J., B. Chi, and E. Middaugh. 2006. Building Social Capital for Civic and Political Engagement: The Potential of High School Civics Courses. Canadian Journal of Education 29(2): 387-409. Kahne, J. and S. E. Sporte. 2008. Developing Citizens: the Impact of Civic Learning Opportunities on Students: Commitment to Civic Participation. American Educational Research Journal 45(3): 738-766. Kahne, J. and J. Westheimer. 2003. Teaching Democracy: What Schools Need to Do. Phi Delta Kappan 85(1): 34-40, 57-61, 63-66. Langton, K. P. 1967. Peer group and school and the political socialization process. American Political Science Review 61:751-758. Lee, T., Junn, J., Ramakrishnan, K., Wong, J. Diversity and Democracy: Context and the Puzzle of Asian American Political Engagement. New York, NY: Russell Sage, forthcoming. Lopez, M. H. and K. B. Marcelo. 2008. The Civic Engagement of Immigrant Youth: New Evidence from the 2006 Civic and Political Health of the Nation Survey. Applied Development Science 12(2): 66-73. Metz, E. and J. Youniss. 2003. A Demonstration that School-Based Required Service Does Not Deter but Heightens Volunteerism. PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2): 281-286. 21

Michelson, M. and L. García Bedolla. 2010. Survey Says: Numbers Don t Lie, but People Do. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, April 2010. Nasir, N. S. and B. Kirshner. 2003. The Cultural Construction of Moral and Civic Identities. Applied Developmental Science 7(3): 138-147. Niemi, R. G.. and J. Junn. 1998. Civic Education. New Haven: Yale University Press. Niemi, R. G., J. Junn, and K. Stehlik-Barry. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Niemi, R. G. and Sobieszek. 1977. Political Socialization. Annual Review of Sociology 3: 209-233. Pasek, J., L. Feldman, D. Romer, and K. H. Jamieson. 2008. Schools as Incubators of Democratic Participation: Building Long-Term Political Efficacy with Civic Education. Applied Development Science 12(1): 26-37. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Shuster. Ramakrishnan, K. and M. Baldassare. 2004. The Ties that Bind: Changing Demographics and Civic Engagement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Reinders, H. and J. Youniss. 2006. School-Based Required Community Service and Civic Development in Adolescents. Applied Developmental Science 10(1): 2-12. Schmidt, J. A., L. Shomow and H. Kacker. 2007. Adolescents Participation in Service Activities and its Impact on Academic, Behavioral, and Civic Outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36: 127-140. Sherrod, L. R. 2003. Promoting the Development of Citizenship in Diverse Youth. PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2): 287-292. Tate, K. 1993. From Protest to Politics: the New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Torney_Purta, J. and B. S. Wilkenfeld. 2009. Paths to 21 st Century Competencies through Civic Education Classrooms: An Analysis of Survey Results from Ninth Graders (A Technical Assistance Bulletin). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Division for Public Education. 22

Torney-Purta, J., C. H. Barber, B. S. Wilkenfeld. 2007. Latino Adolescents Civic Development in the United States: Research Results from the IEA Civic Education Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36: 111-125. Tyack, D. 2001. Schools for Citizens: The Politics of Civic Education from 1790-1990, In Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, eds., E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Immigrant Politics. New York: Russell Sage,. Verba, S., K. L. Schlozman, and H. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Verba, S. and N. Nie. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Westheimer, J. and J. Kahne. 2003. Reconnecting Education to Democracy: Democratic Dialogues. Phi Delta Kappan 85(1): 8-14. Westheimer, J. and J. Kahne. 2004. What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy. American Educational Research Journal 41(2): 237-269. Zaff, J., O. Malanchuk, and J. S. Eccles. 2008. Predicting Positive Citizenship from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: The Effects of a Civic Context. Applied Development Science 12(1): 38-53. 23