What Does the Research Say About Effective Civic Education at the High

School Level?Joseph Kahne

Mills College

Susan Sporte Consortium on Chicago School Research

Alternatives to Large, Traditional High Schools Event: CIRCLE, July 6, 2005

Consortium on Chicago School Research and

Mills College

Goals of Presentation

• Discuss a set of strategies for fostering commitments to civic engagement.

• Share findings from a study in Chicago that examines the impact of these strategies.

• Identify school level factors that promote the provision of these opportunities for civic development (including small schools).

Goal

Goal: The commitment and capacity to work to improve one’s community and the broader society.

Six Promising Practices

• Instruction in Government, History, Law and Democracy (CMS#1)

• Discussion of Current Events of Interest to Students (CMS #2)

• Community Service and Service Learning (CMS #3)

• Extracurricular Activities (CMS #4)

• Voice in the School and the Classroom (CMS #5)

• Simulations of Democratic Processes and Procedures. (CMS #6)

• Exposure to Role Models

Goal: An Identity Committed to Civic Engagement

Capacities for informed civic engagement

Connections to those committed to civic

engagement

Commitments to issues and

ideals

An identity committed to

Civic Engagement

Civic Mission of Schools

“6 Promising Practices”

Measures Used in this Study

• Home and School Context– Parental Support for Student Learning

(a=.82)– Level of Civic Engagement in each

Student’s Community (a=.75)

• School Culture Indicators– Student Classroom Behavior (a=.61)– Academic Personalism (a=.72)– Student/Teacher Trust (a=.78)

Measures, Cont’d• Exposure to Curricular Supports

– Classroom Civic Opportunities (includes CMS recommendations 2,3,5, and 6 + role models (a=.76)

– Participation in after-school activities (CMS #4)

– Content tied to student interest

• Controls– Prior commitment to civic engagement– School characteristics– Student demographics– Student academic indicators

Analytic Method

• Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM)• Survey of 9,800 students in 2001 and 2003.

Findings

• The following were significantly related to civic commitments: Beta– Classroom Civic Opportunities .80– Content tied to student interests .08– After school activities .13– Prior commitment: help in community .09

Findings, Cont’d

• Also significantly related to civic commitments: Beta– Peer support for academics .04– Civic engagement in each .19

Student’s community– Parent support for academics .10– SES .04– Female .08

Findings, Cont’d

• Not significantly related:– Student assessment of student voice

in school– Teacher/student trust– Concentration of poverty in student’s

census block– Prior academic achievement

Interpretation

• Opportunities for civic development matter—they promote civic commitments even when controlling for demographics, prior achievement and prior commitments,

• The effect size of these opportunities indicate that they matter quite a bit. Schools can make a significant difference in this regard.

• Student voice in the school is the one exception—but student voice in the classroom did appear to matter.

Factors promoting classroom opportunities

• School-level factors– Average achievement in the school .08

– Teacher knowledge of student culture.11

– Small high schools .07

Prevalence of Classroom Opportunities in Past Year

• 65% of students reported they had not worked on a project to improve their community in any of their classes.

• 50% had not been required to keep up with politics of government in any of their classes.

• 56% had not participated in a role play or simulation in any of their classes.

Summary

• What happens in classrooms can foster civic commitments – even when compared with the influence of the home and the community.

• Schools in Chicago could enhance the volume of these opportunities.

• Small schools may make provision of such opportunities more likely.