Over the course of two Saturdays—June 13 and June 20—National Civics Fellow Joseph Kahne led a conversation with the public on the state of civics education. The event was facilitated by Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab. Kahne, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, crafted this event as a part of his fellowship with the Hoover Institution’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions.
In these deliberations, nearly two hundred members of the public who were geographically, demographically, and politically diverse discussed hotly debated issues associated with civics education. For example, they discussed the priority that should be placed on civic knowledge and student experiences and perspectives on issues; the degree to which students should participate in service or political activities outside of the classroom; the role of patriotism in civics; and how to discuss controversial topics.
Using the Deliberative Democracy Lab’s Deliberative Polling format, participants took a survey before engaging with background materials and each other. They heard from two groups of subject matter experts who provided a range of perspectives on these topics before taking the survey again. Although the goal of the deliberation was not for individuals to reach a consensus, initial analyses of the data show that individuals with different political perspectives and priorities often agreed on some important elements of civics education.
For example, relatively equal numbers of conservatives, liberals, and moderates agreed that civics should prioritize both knowing facts about how the government works (over 80 percent of post-survey respondents strongly supported this) and encouraging students to cultivate their opinions and perspectives on issues in their communities (over 80 percent of post-survey respondents strongly supported this). And although the role of student action in civics courses has been portrayed as contested, the majority of respondents agreed that both service and potentially political actions should be allowed within the context of civics classes under certain conditions (such as parental approval).
A range of scholars and practitioners served as subject matter experts, answering questions that the participants crafted and voted on collectively. Those individuals included: Antero Garcia, professor in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and president of the National Council of Teachers of English; Chester E. Finn, Jr., Volker Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and president emeritus of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute; Andrea Foggy-Paxton, founder of the Social Studies Accelerator and Education Leaders of Color; John Rogers, professor of education and associate dean for research and public scholarship in the UCLA School of Education and Information Studies; and Thomas Schnaubelt, executive director of the Center for Revitalizing American Institutions at the Hoover Institution.
The overwhelming majority of participants said they found the deliberations extremely valuable. Afterward, participants were more likely to say that individuals who disagree about civics education priorities should be able to come together and compromise on solutions, and they were more likely to feel that the system of democracy in the United States is working. This group will release a more detailed report in the coming months and has plans to continue using this deliberative format in different settings.
