What Kind of Citizen

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/309347126
What kind of citizenship? The politics of education for democracy
Article in American Educational Research Journal · January 2004
CITATIONS READS
93 632
2 authors, including:
Joseph Kahne
University of California, Riverside
129 PUBLICATIONS 8,060 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Kahne on 01 March 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WHAT KIND OF CITIZEN?
THE POLITICS OF EDUCATING
FOR DEMOCRACY
Joel Westheimer
University of Ottawa
Joseph Kahne
Mills College
Educators and policymakers are increasingly pursuing programs that aim to strengthen
democracy through civic education, service learning, and other pedagogies. The
nature of their underlying beliefs, however, differ. “What Kind of Citizen?" calls
attention to the spectrum of ideas represented in education programs about what good
citizenship is and what good citizens do. Our arguments derive from an analysis of
both democratic theory and a two-year study of educational programs that aim to
promote democracy. We detail three conceptions of the “good” citizen—personally
responsible, participatory, and justice oriented—that underscore political implications
of education for democracy. We demonstrate that the narrow and often ideologically
conservative conception of citizenship embedded in many current efforts at teaching for
democracy reflects not arbitrary choices but rather political choices with political
consequences.
T he notion of democracy occupies a privileged place in our society. Everyone believes

democracy is desirable. Indeed, educators, policymakers, politicians, and community activists
alike pursue dozens of agendas for change under the banner of furthering democracy. The
nature of their underlying beliefs, however, differ. We titled this article "What Kind of
Citizen?" to call attention to the spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good
citizens do that are embodied by democratic education programs nationwide. We added the
subtitle "The Politics of Education for Democracy" to underscore our belief that the narrow and
often ideologically conservative conception of citizenship embedded in many current efforts at
teaching for democracy reflects neither arbitrary choices nor pedagogical limitations but rather
political choices with political consequences.
In what follows, we examine the politics of educating for democracy. Specifically, we
draw on our two-year study of ten programs that aimed to advance the democratic purposes of
education. We begin by detailing three conceptions of citizenship (personally responsible,
participatory, and justice oriented) that emerged from our analysis of democratic theory and
program goals and practices. We then discuss some of the potentially significant political
implications of these differing conceptions. The bulk of our empirical work describes two of the
ten programs we studied. One program aimed to advance participatory citizens and the other
justice oriented citizens. Our data–both quantitative and qualitative– demonstrates that the
American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

2
decisions educators make when designing and researching these programs often influence
politically important outcomes regarding the ways students understand the strengths and
weaknesses of our society and the ways that they should act as citizens in a democracy.
What Kind of Citizen?

Philosophers, historians and political scientists have long debated which conceptions of
citizenship would best advance democracy (see, for example, Kaestle, 2000; Smith, 1997;
Schudson, 1998). Indeed, as Connolly (1983) has argued, conceptions of democracy and
citizenship have been and will likely always be debated – no single formulation will triumph.
The work of John Dewey, for example, which has probably done the most to shape dialogues on
education and democracy, has not led to resolution. Rather, scholars and practitioners have
interpreted his ideas in multiple ways, so no single conception emerges. In large part, this
diversity of perspectives occurs because the stakes are so high. Conceptions of “good
citizenship” imply conceptions of the good society.
The diverse perspectives on citizenship also have significantly different implications for
curriculum. For example, Walter Parker (1996) describes three very different conceptions of
citizen education for a democratic society: “traditional,” “progressive,” and “advanced.” He
explains that traditionalists emphasize an understanding of how government works (how a bill
becomes a law, for example) and traditional subject area content as well as commitments to core
democratic values – such as freedom of speech or liberty in general (see, for example, Butts, 1988).
Progressives share a similar commitment to this knowledge, but they embrace visions like “strong
democracy” (Barber, 1984) and place a greater emphasis on civic participation in its numerous
forms (see, for example, Newmann, 1975; Hannah, 1936;). Finally, “advanced” citizenship,
according to Parker, is one that builds on the progressive perspective but adds careful attention to
inherent tensions between pluralism and assimilation or to what Charles Taylor, labels the “politics
of recognition” (1994, cited in Parker)
Other writers, frequently those on the left, place a greater emphasis on the need for social
critique and structural change (Shor, 1992; Friere, 1970). Alternatively, those with an often
conservative vision of citizenship education put forward a connection between citizenship and
character (Bennett, 1995; 1998; Bennett, Cribb, & Finn, 1999). Rather than viewing problems in
need of attention as structural, they emphasize problems in society caused by personal deficits.
Some educators reflect the liberal vision of citizenship embedded in John Rawls’ (1971) writings,
aiming, for example, to recognize the varied perspectives of the good that exist in a pluralistic
society. What citizens require, in this view, is preparation for a society characterized by “durable
pluralism” (see Strike, 1999). Still other visions emphasize preparing informed voters, preparing
individuals for public deliberation, and preparing students to critically analyze social policies and
priorities. Indeed, there exists a vast and valuable array of perspectives on the kinds of citizens
democracies require and the kinds of curricula that can help to achieve these aims (see, for
example, Callan, 1997; Fine, 1995, Gutmann, 1986; Soder et al., 2001; Youniss & Yates, 1997).
The particular framework we provide below was selected in order to highlight several
important political dimensions of efforts to educate citizens for democracy. Our description of
three “kinds of citizens” is not intended to be exhaustive. In addition, while we detail strategies
related to these goals elsewhere (Kahne & Westheimer, 2003 and Westheimer & Kahne, 2002) the
focus of this study is less about different strategies educators use to get to a particular democratic
destination than about the varied conceptions of the destination itself, thus our focus: what kind of
citizen?
Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Teaching for Democracy
3
Three Kinds of Citizens

Our framework aims to order some of these perspectives by grouping three differing
kinds of answers to a question that is of central importance for both practitioners and scholars:
What kind of citizen do we need to support an effective democratic society? In mapping the
terrain that surrounds answers to this question, we found that three visions of “citizenship” were
particularly helpful in making sense of the variation: the personally responsible citizen; the
participatory citizen; and the justice oriented citizen (see Table 1).
These three categories were chosen because they satisfied our three main criteria: 1)
they aligned well with prominent theoretical perspectives described above, 2) they highlight
important differences in the ways educators conceive of democratic educational aims; that is,
they frame distinctions that have significant implications for the politics of education for
democracy, and 3) they articulate ideas and ideals that resonate with practitioners (teachers,
administrators, and curriculum designers). To that end, we consulted with both the 10 teams of
educators whose work we studied and with other leaders in the field in an effort to create
categories and descriptions that aligned well with and communicated clearly their differing
priorities1.
Each vision of citizenship, therefore, reflects a relatively distinct set of theoretical and
curricular goals. These visions are not cumulative. Programs that promote justice oriented
citizens do not necessarily promote personal responsibility and participatory citizenship. In
saying this, we do not mean to imply that a given program might not simultaneously further
more than one of these agendas. For instance, while a curriculum designed principally to
promote personally responsible citizens will generally look quite different than one that focuses
primarily on developing capacities and commitments for participatory citizenship, it is possible
for a given curriculum to further both goals. At the same time that such overlap may occur, we
believe that drawing attention to the distinctions between these visions of citizenship is
important. It highlights the value of examining the underlying goals and assumptions that drive
different educational programs.
The Personally Responsible Citizen

The personally responsible citizen acts responsibly in his/her community by, for
example, picking up litter, giving blood, recycling, obeying laws, and staying out of debt. The
personally responsible citizen contributes to food or clothing drives when asked and volunteers
to help those less fortunate whether in a soup kitchen or a senior center. Programs that seek to
develop personally responsible citizens hope to build character and personal responsibility by
emphasizing honesty, integrity, self-discipline, and hard work (Horace Mann, 1838; and
currently proponents such as Lickona, 1993; Wynne, 1986).
Those in the character education movement frequently advance such perspectives. The
Character Counts! Coalition, for example, advocates teaching students to “treat others with
respect…deal peacefully with anger…be considerate of the feelings of others…follow the
Golden Rule…use good manners” and so on (Character Counts!, 1996). Other programs that
seek to develop personally responsible citizens hope to nurture compassion by engaging
students in volunteer activities. As illustrated in the mission of the Points of Light Foundation,
these programs hope to "help solve serious social problems" by “engag[ing] more people more
effectively in volunteer service” (www.pointsoflight.org, April 2000).

4
The Participatory Citizen

Other educators see good citizens as those who actively participate in the civic affairs
and the social life of the community at local, state, and national levels. We call this kind of
citizen the participatory citizen. Proponents of this vision emphasize preparing students to
engage in collective, community-based efforts. Educational programs designed to support the
development of participatory citizens focus on teaching students about how government and
community based organizations work and about the importance of planning and participating in
organized efforts to care for those in need, for example, or in efforts to guide school policies.
Skills associated with such collective endeavors–such as how to run a meeting–are also viewed
as important (Newmann, 1975; also see Verba, at al., 1995 for an empirical analysis of the
importance of such skills and activities). While the personally responsible citizen would
contribute cans of food for the homeless, the participatory citizen might organize the food drive.
In the tradition of De Tocqueville, proponents of participatory citizenship argue that
civic participation transcends particular community problems or opportunities. It also develops
relationships, common understandings, trust, and collective commitments. Dewey (1916) put
forward a vision of “Democracy as a Way of Life” and emphasized participation in collective
endeavors. This perspective, like Benjamin Barber’s notion of “strong democracy,” adopts a
broad notion of the political sphere – one in which citizens “with competing but overlapping
interests can contrive to live together communally" (1984, 118).
[See Table 1]
The Justice Oriented Citizen

Our third image of a good citizen is, perhaps, the perspective that is least commonly
pursued. Justice oriented educators argue that effective democratic citizens need opportunities
to analyze and understand the interplay of social, economic, and political forces. We refer to
this view as the justice oriented citizen because advocates of these priorities use rhetoric and
analysis that calls explicit attention to matters of injustice and to the importance of pursuing
social justice.2 The vision of the justice oriented citizen shares with the vision of the participatory
citizen an emphasis on collective work related to the life and issues of the community. Its focus on
responding to social problems and to structural critique make it somewhat different, however.
Building on perspectives like those of Freire and Shor noted earlier, educational programs that
emphasize social change seek to prepare students to improve society by critically analyzing and
addressing social issues and injustices. These programs are less likely to emphasize the need for
charity and volunteerism as ends in themselves and more likely to teach about social
movements and how to effect systemic change (See, for example, Ayers, 1998; Bigelow and
Diamond, 1988; Issac, 1995)3. That today’s citizens are “bowling alone” (Putnam, 2000) would
worry those focused on civic participation. Those who emphasize social justice, however, would
worry more that when citizens do get together, they often fail to focus on root causes of problems.
In other words, if participatory citizens are organizing the food drive and personally responsible
citizens are donating food, justice oriented citizens are asking why people are hungry and acting on
what they discover.
Although educators aiming to promote justice oriented citizens may well employ
curriculum that makes political issues more explicit than those who emphasize personal
responsibility or participatory citizenship, the focus on social change and social justice does not
5
imply an emphasis on particular political perspectives, conclusions, or priorities. (The range of

structural approaches for alleviating poverty that exist, for example, spans the political
spectrum.) Indeed, those working to prepare justice oriented citizens for a democracy do not
aim to impart a fixed set of truths or critiques regarding the structure of the society4. Rather,
they work to engage students in informed analysis and discussion regarding social, political, and
economic structures. They want students to consider collective strategies for change that
challenge injustice and, when possible, address root causes of problems. The nature of this
discussion is of critical importance. As many theorists of democracy make clear, it is
fundamentally important that the process respect the varied voices and priorities of citizens
while considering the evidence of experts, the analysis of government leaders or the particular
preferences of a given group or of an individual leader. Similarly, students must learn to weigh
the varied opinions and arguments of fellow students and teachers. Since conceptions of the
greater good will differ, justice oriented students must develop the ability to communicate with
and learn from those who hold different perspectives. This is not to say that consensus is
always the appropriate outcome. Educating justice oriented citizens also requires that they be
prepared to effectively promote their goals as individuals and groups in sometimes contentious
political arenas.
The Limits of Personal Responsibility

Among competing conceptions of democratic values and citizenship, personal
responsibility receives the most attention. This is especially true of the character education and
community service movements, both of which are well-funded efforts to bring about these
particular kinds of reforms. We find this emphasis an inadequate response to the challenges of
educating a democratic citizenry. The limits of character education and of volunteerism and the
conservative political orientation reflected in many of these efforts have been addressed elsewhere
in some detail so we simply summarize them here. Critics note that the emphasis placed on
individual character and behavior obscures the need for collective and often public sector
initiatives; that this emphasis distracts attention from analysis of the causes of social problems and
from systemic solutions; that volunteerism and kindness are put forward as ways of avoiding
politics and policy (Barber, 1992; Boyte, 1991; Westheimer and Kahne, 2000; Kahne and
Westheimer, 1996).
As a way of illustrating what we see as the limitations of personally responsible
citizenship as it is commonly practiced in school-based programs, recall the central tenets of the
Character Counts! Coalition. Certainly honesty, integrity, and responsibility for one’s actions
are valuable character traits for good neighbors and citizens. We are not arguing that personal
responsibility or related virtuous behavior is unimportant. Similarly, in most circumstances,
obeying laws that flow from democratic structures such as legislatures is essential. Such traits
have the potential to strengthen a democracy by fostering social trust and willingness to commit
to collective efforts, for example.5 There are a host of reasons that extend beyond our focus on
democratic citizenship that could be used to justify efforts by educators to foster personal
responsibility—trustworthy, helpful, hard working, and pleasant students. No one wants young
people to lie, cheat, and steal.
At the same time, those visions of obedience and patriotism that are often and
increasingly associated with this agenda can be at odds with democratic goals. And even the
widely accepted goals—fostering honesty, good neighborliness, and so on— are not inherently
about democracy. Indeed, government leaders in a totalitarian regime would be as delighted as

6
leaders in a democracy if their young citizens learned the lessons put forward by many of the
proponents of personally responsible citizenship: don’t do drugs; show up to school; show up to
work; give blood; help others during a flood; recycle; pick up litter; clean up a park; treat old
people with respect. These are desirable traits for people living in a community. But they are
not about democratic citizenship. To the extent that emphasis on these character traits detract
from other important democratic priorities, they may actually hinder rather than make possible
democratic participation and change. For example, a focus on loyalty or obedience (common
components of character education as well) works against the kind of critical reflection and
action many assume are essential in a democratic society.
Data regarding the way young people often think about their civic responsibilities,
reinforces our concern regarding an exclusive focus on personally responsible citizenship. A
study commissioned by the National Association of Secretaries of State (1999) found that less
than 32 percent of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 voted in the 1996 presidential
election (in 1972, the comparable number was 50 percent), but that a whopping 94 percent of
those aged 15-24 believed that “the most important thing I can do as a citizen is to help others”
(also see Sax, et al., 1999). In a very real sense, youth seem to be “learning” that citizenship
does not require democratic governments, politics, or even collective endeavors.
Research and evaluation of educational programs also frequently reflect this
conservative and individualistic conception of personally responsible citizenship6. Studies
commonly ask participants, for example, whether they feel it is their responsibility to take care
of those in need and whether problems of pollution and toxic waste are “everyone’s
responsibility” or “not my responsibility.” They rarely ask questions about corporate
responsibility—in what ways industries should be regulated, for example—or about ways
government policies can advance or hinder solutions to social problems. Survey questions
typically emphasize individual and charitable acts. They ignore important influences like social
movements and government policy on efforts to improve society. Educators who seek to teach
personally responsible citizenship and researchers who study their programs focus on individual
acts of compassion and kindness, not on collective social action and the pursuit of social justice
(Kahne, Westheimer, and Rogers, 2000).
Pursuit of Participatory and Justice-Oriented Citizens

Often, democratic theorists blend commitments to participation with commitments to
justice. For example, Benjamin Barber’s “strong democracy” focuses on forms of civic
engagement that are “persuasively progressive and democratic…useful especially to those who are
partisans of democratic struggle and social justice” (1998, 10). Similarly, Boyte and Kari (1996)
invoke the populist tradition and emphasize the need to recognize the talent, intelligence, and
capacities of ordinary people by engaging them in collective civic projects. They stress the
importance of forms of civic participation that have historically been used to pursue social justice
showcasing, for example, the work of civil rights activists who used nonviolent actions of civil
disobedience.
From the standpoint of supporting the development of democratic communities,
combining these commitments is rational. Developing commitments for civic participation and
social justice as well as fostering the capacities to fulfill these commitments will support the
development of a more democratic society. We should be wary of assuming that commitments to
participatory citizenship and to justice necessarily align, however. These two orientations have
potentially differing implications for educators. While pursuit of both goals may well support
7
development of a more democratic society, it is not clear whether making advances along one
dimension will necessarily further progress on the other. Do programs that support civic
participation necessarily promote students’ capacities for critical analysis and social change?
Conversely, does focusing on social justice provide the foundation for effective and committed
civic actors? Or might such programs support the development of armchair activists who have
articulate conversations over coffee, without ever acting? We now turn to these questions.
Our empirical investigation of this topic focuses on the subtle and not so subtle differences
between programs that emphasize participation and those that emphasize justice. We focus this
part of our discussion on goals of participatory and justice-oriented citizenship for two reasons.
First, due to shortcomings of the personally responsible model as a means of developing citizens,
none of the programs funded by the foundation that supported our study emphasized this approach.
Moreover, as noted earlier, a significant body of work already addresses the conflicts and
limitations of equating personal responsibility with democratic citizenship.
Below, we describe two of the programs we studied to draw attention to the differences
in their civic and democratic priorities and to the tensions these differences raise for educators.
Both programs worked with classes of high school students and both initiatives were designed
to support the development of democratic and civic understandings and commitments. But their
goals and strategies differed. The first, which we call Madison County Youth in Public Service,
aims to develop participatory citizens; the second, which we call Bayside Students for Justice,
aims to develop justice-oriented citizens.
Method
Sample
This paper focuses on data from two of the ten programs we studied as part of the
Surdna Foundation’s Democratic Values Initiative.7 The first, "Madison County Youth in
Public Service," was located in a suburban/rural East Coast community outside a city of roughly
23,000 people. Two teachers were involved in this project, one from each of the county’s high
schools. Although we were not able to collect reports on students’ ethnicity, teachers
characterized the student population as almost entirely European American (with a few recent
immigrants). An estimated three percent of the schools’ students are persons of color. Each
year, the teachers worked with one of their government classes, so over two years, four classes
participated. Students needed to request to participate in this version of the 12th grade
government class, and teachers characterized participants as slightly better than average in
terms of academic background. Students who enrolled in the Advanced Placement government
course could not participate. More girls (59 percent) than boys (41 percent) participated.
The second program, "Bayside Students For Justice," was a curriculum developed as
part of a 12th grade Social Studies course for low-achieving students in a comprehensive urban
high school on the west coast. The student population is typical of west coast city schools: a
total of 25 students took part in the program, and 21 of them completed both pre and post
surveys; of those taking the survey, 13 were female (62%) and 8 male (38%), 8 were African
American (38%), 1 was Caucasian (5%), 8 were Asian or Pacific Islander (38%), 1 was Latino
(5%), and 3 identified themselves as “Other” (10%). The group tested roughly at national
norms and was relatively low-income with 40 percent living in public housing (data provided by
the instructor).

8
Procedures
Our study employs a mixed-methods approach – it combines qualitative data from
observations and interviews with quantitative analysis of pre/post survey data. Our rationale for
adopting a mixed-methods approach reflects what Lois-ellin Datta (1997) has labeled “the
pragmatic basis” for mixed-method designs. That is, we employed the combination of methods
we felt were best suited to our inquiry – the methods that would best enable us to gain insight
and to communicate what we learned to relevant audiences (also see Patton, 1988).
At all 10 sites in our study, we collected four forms of data: observations, interviews,
surveys, and documents prepared by program staff. Each year, our observations took place over
a two to three day period in classrooms and at service sites. Over the two years of the study, we
interviewed 61 students from "Madison County" (close to all participating students, in groups of
3 or 4). We interviewed 23 students from "Bayside" (either individually or in groups of 2 to 3.
We aimed for a cross section of students in terms of academic ability, enthusiasm for the
program, and gender. We also interviewed at least three staff members for each program
towards the end of each year. Interviews lasted between 20 and 45 minutes and all interviews
were both taped and transcribed. Finally, we conducted pre and post surveys of all participating
students in September and June. In the case of Madison County Youth In Public Service, we
studied the same program for two years8. Bayside’s program changed significantly after the
first year of operation, and so it did not make sense to merge the data from years one and two.
In this paper, we report data only from the second year.9 To receive feedback and as a check on
our interpretations, we shared analysis on our quantitative and qualitative findings with those
who ran the programs.
Measures and Analysis

Survey items were selected in an effort to assess capacities and orientations related to
aspects of the three kinds of citizenship we identified. We also included several measures
associated with students’ civic orientation and capacities: civic efficacy, vision, leadership
efficacy, desire to volunteer in the future, knowledge/social capital for community development,
following news stories, views on government responsibility for those in need, and employer
responsibility for employees 10. Together, these measures helped us see differences across
programs in democratic orientation and capacities that they promoted 11.
The interviews and observations were designed to help us clarify students’ beliefs
regarding what it means to be a good citizen and ways features of the curriculum may have
affected those perspectives. We asked participants to identify and discuss particular social issues
that are important to them and to community members. We encouraged them to describe their
perspective on the nature of these problems, their causes, and possible ways of responding. Did
they emphasize individual morality, the need for civic participation, a focus on challenging
structures or social inequities? Next we asked participants to describe any ways their participation
in the given program might have altered their attitudes, knowledge, or skills in relation to these
issues.
We asked similar questions of teachers. We wanted to understand their priorities, their
conception of responsible and effective citizenship, their perspective on civic education, their
strategies, and the ways these approaches did and did not appear to be working. During these
interviews we encouraged students and instructors to talk about specific “critical incidents” so that
we could better understand the curricular components that promoted varied forms of development.
Our methods here were informed by critical incident interviewing techniques (see Flanagan, 1954).
9
The analysis of interview and observation data occurred throughout data collection as
well as after data collection was complete and followed the process described by Strauss (1990)
as the "constant comparative method." This iterative process occurred through reflective and
analytical memos between the researchers as well as the ongoing coding of field notes. In
particular, we analyzed the interviews for recurring themes and patterns regarding student and
teacher perceptions of how participation had affected students’ beliefs regarding citizenship and
democratic values. We also asked teachers to reflect on our observations not only to test the
accuracy of statements but also to re-examine perceptions and conclusions, drawing on their
insider knowledge12.
Authors’ Predispositions
Given the ideological nature of the content of our inquiry, it makes sense for us to be
explicit about our own perspectives with regard to personally responsible citizenship, participatory
citizenship, and justice oriented citizenship. We think each vision has merit. However, although
we value character traits such as honesty, diligence, and compassion, for reasons already discussed,
we find the exclusive emphasis on personally responsible citizenship when estranged from analysis
of social, political, and economic contexts (as it frequently is in practice) inadequate for advancing
democracy. There is nothing inherently democratic about the traits of a personally responsible
citizen and there are practices at times specifically undemocratic associated with programs that rely
exclusively on notions of personal responsibility.
From our perspective, traits associated with participatory and justice oriented citizens, on
the other hand, are essential. Not every program needs to simultaneously address all goals to be of
value. But educators must attend to these priorities if schools are to prepare citizens for democracy.
Developing Participatory Citizens:

Madison County Youth In Public Service
Madison County Youth in Public Service is run by two social studies teachers in a rural
East Coast community. The idea for Youth in Public Service came to one of the teachers after
she had attended a speech by Benjamin Barber about the importance of engaging students in
public life. These teachers (one a twenty-year veteran and the other a second year teacher)
taught a condensed and intensified version of a standard government course during the first
semester of the academic year. For the second semester, they developed a service learning
curriculum. Students focused on particular topics related to their government curriculum as
they worked in small teams on public service projects in their county's administrative offices.
Their goal, as one teacher explained, “is to produce kids that are active citizens in our
community…kids that won’t be afraid to go out and take part in their community…kids that
understand that you have to have factual evidence to backup anything you say, anything you
do.”
One group of students investigated whether citizens in their community wanted
curbside trash pickup that was organized by the county. They conducted phone interviews,
undertook a cost analysis, and examined charts of projected housing growth to estimate growth
in trash and its cost and environmental implications. Another group identified jobs that
prisoners incarcerated for fewer than 90 days could perform and analyzed the cost of similar
programs in other localities. Other students helped to develop a five-year plan for the fire and
rescue department. For each project, students had to collect and analyze data, interact with

10
government agencies, write a report, and present their findings in a formal hearing before the
county’s Board of Supervisors.
The teachers of Youth in Public Service believed that placing students in internships
where they worked on meaningful projects under the supervision of committed role models
would:
• teach students how government worked;

• help students recognize the importance of being actively involved in community
issues; and
• provide students with the skills required for effective and informed civic
involvement.
As we discuss below, Madison County Youth In Public Service was quite successful at
achieving many of these goals.
Making Civic Education Meaningful

Our interviews, observations, and survey data all indicated that the experience working in
the local community had a significant impact on students, especially as it compared to traditional
class work. Janine's reaction was typical:
I learned more by doing this than I would just sitting in a classroom…. I mean,
you really don't have hands-on activities in a classroom. But when you go out
[to the public agencies] instead of getting to read about problems, we see the
problems. Instead of, you know, writing down a solution, we make a solution.
Teresa, another student, said:
I kind of felt like everything that we had been taught in class, how the whole
government works….We got to learn it and we got to go out and experience it. We
saw things happening in front of us within the agency. I think it was more useful to
put it together and see it happening instead of just reading from a book and learning
from it.
Not only did the activities in the community help to enliven classroom learning, but many of the
students' projects also tangibly affected the local community. Indeed, students talked about the
powerful impact of realizing that what they did would or could make a difference:
I thought it was just going be another project. You know, we do some research, it
gets written down and we leave and it gets put on the shelf somewhere. But in five
years, this [curbside recycling] is going to be a real thing….It's really going to
happen.
I didn't expect [our work] to have such an impact…..I mean, we've been in the
newspaper, like, a lot.
11
By engaging students in projects in the community, Madison County Youth in Public Service had
significant success making learning relevant to students, conveying practical knowledge about how
to engage in community affairs, and demonstrating to students the ways classroom-based academic
knowledge can be used for civic work in the community.
Making a Difference in the Lives of Others

The curriculum also developed students’ desire to participate in civic affairs and a sense
that they can make a difference in the lives of others. When asked about how the program
influenced their thinking, most students talked about how the experience deepened their belief in
the importance of civic involvement. Emily, for example, spoke about the difference between
talking about a problem and doing something active:
Everyone needs to do their part if they want something to be done…In politics, the
people always say their opinions and get mad about his and that but then they
never do anything about what they feel…This [experience] makes me feel like
you have to do your part.
Moreover, many students reported a strong sense that they could get things done if they tried:
We’re just kids to most people, and I kind of figured that those people wouldn’t
really give us the time of day [but] they were always willing to help us.
I realized there’s a lot more to government than being a senator or a representative.

There’s so many different things you can do for the [community] that aren’t as high
up.
Students also reported excitement at the prospect of getting involved in ways they did not know
were available to them before their experience with the Youth in Public Service program:
I didn’t know that [the sheriff’s office] had meetings all the time…It makes me
think that I’ll go to them when I get older.
I think if more people were aware of [ways they could participate] we wouldn't
have as many problems, because they would understand that…people do have an
impact. But I think in our community…people just don't seem to think that they
will, so they don't even try.
Our survey results help to further illustrate many of these effects. Student responses to
questions asked on a five point Likert scale indicated statistically significant (p<.05) changes in
pre- to post-test raw scores on several measures related to civic participation. As detailed in Table
2, students expressed a greater belief that they had a personal responsibility to help others (+0.21), a
greater belief that government should help those in need (+0.24), a stronger sense that they could
be effective leaders (+0.31), and an increased sense of agency–a sense that they could make a
difference in their communities (+0.24). Students also reported that they had a greater commitment
to community involvement (this increase, +0.19, was marginally significant with p=.06).
The robust nature of these results became clearer during the second year because a
control group was also surveyed. This group had similar academic skills and were taught by the

12
same two teachers. We used t-tests to examine whether the gains noted above for the students
that participated in the Madison County program were different than those that occurred in the
control classrooms. For six of the seven measures on which Madison County students registered
statistically significant gains, we found a statistically significant (P. < .05) difference between
the gains of the students in the Madison County program and those in the control classrooms 13.
This, combined with the fact that the control group did not show statistically significant changes
on any survey measures, adds to our confidence that the Madison County curriculum supported
student development in ways consistent with a vision of participatory citizenship.
[See Tables 2 and 3]
A Vision of What to Do and the Knowledge and Skills Needed to Do It

Students consistently spoke of the needs in their community and of their ideas about how
to address these needs. The group of students investigating curb-side trash pickup, for example,
conducted surveys of community residents, researched other communities’ recycling programs,
met with County officials about their plan, and wrote letters to the editors of local newspapers.
“We researched the Code of [Madison] County to find out, you know, the legal requirements,” one
student explained. Another group discovered that child immunization rates were low in their
community and worked with the Health Department to develop ways to encourage parents to have
their children immunized:
[We] worked on the computer a lot, putting records in, trying to find percentages
[of children immunized] for the counties around us…We talked about outreach
programs and stuff like that. We’re basically trying to let parents know.
Other groups learned how to analyze the tax code, phoning the Commissioner of Revenue’s office
when they needed information or explanations; or wrote grants to raise money for student
resources; or traveled to the state attorney’s office to get information on crime rates in schools
before surveying faculty and students.
The quantitative findings (see Table 2) demonstrated the gains in students’ vision and
sense of capacity for community engagement as well. Responses on Likert scales indicated
increases in students’ vision of how to help others (+0.30) and in their belief that they had
knowledge and the “social capital” needed to support community development (+ 0.94, the
greatest gain). The control groups showed no significant change in these measures.
The Politics of Participatory Citizenship

The Youth in Public Service program aimed to promote civic participation consistent
with a vision of participatory citizenship, to link service to academic content, and to provide a
meaningful research experience. We found the program to be notable for its success in these
areas. But the program did not aim to foster the justice-oriented citizen’s understanding of
structural or root causes of problems. While students did study controversial topics—requiring
prisoners to work for small or no earnings, for example, or evaluating a detention center for
13
juveniles—they did not consider structural issues or questions of systemic injustice . They did
not examine data regarding the relationship between race, social class, and prison sentencing or
question whether increased incarceration has lowered crime rates. They did not examine
whether incarcerating juveniles (as opposed to other possible policies) increases or decreases
the likelihood of future criminal activity or investigate which groups lobby for tougher or less
strict sentencing laws. Nor did they identify or discuss the diverse ideologies that inform
political stances on such issues. Similarly, the group of students who examined their County’s
tax structure to identify possible ways to finance needed school construction conducted a survey
to find out residents’ preferences. They found out that 108 of 121 residents said “no” to the
idea of a local income tax. These students did not discuss the reasons so many residents oppose
a local income tax or examine issues of equity when considering alternative options for
taxation.
Students said they learned a great deal about micro-politics such as how different
government offices compete for funding, why collaboration between county offices is
sometimes difficult, and how to make things happen. However, teachers avoided broader,
ideologically-based political issues. One group of students, for example, conducted research for
the County Voter Registrar. Their plan was to survey Department of Motor Vehicles’
customers to find out how the process could be improved. They struggled for more than a
month to get permission from the DMV to conduct this survey. They were unable to make any
progress until they contacted their state representative. Their request was then approved. As a
student explained, “I basically learned about how our government works and who has pull.”
While valuable, their exploration did not consider the ways interest group and party politics
have influenced voter registration policies. Students were not asked why some groups opposed
practices that would ease the voter registration process.
In general, we did not find evidence in student interviews, our observations, or our
analysis of survey data that student projects and associated analysis examined ideological and
political issues related to interest groups and the political process, the causes of poverty,
different groups’ access to health care, or the fairness of different systems of taxation (even
though two projects focused on issues related to health care and taxation). Students focused on
particular programs and policies and aimed for technocratic/value neutral analysis.
Accordingly, survey data (see Table 2) did not indicate significant increases in measures
related to justice oriented citizenship. The program did not appear to alter students’ stated
interest in politics or political activity (voting, writing letters) or affect their stated commitment
to work for justice. Nor did it alter their perspective on the degree to which structural rather
than individual factors might contribute to poverty.
These findings are consistent with the stated goals of those who run the program. When
asked to list characteristics of a “good citizen,” program leaders cited qualities such as
“honesty,” “civic participation,” “takes responsibility for others,” “becomes involved in solving
public problems,” “active participant rather than passive,” “educated about democracy, makes
decisions based on facts,” and “loyalty to God/Country.” To summarize, then, neither the goals
of the teachers who developed and taught the Youth in Public Service curriculum nor the
outcomes we measured included changes in students’ interest in politics, their perspective on
structural roots of social problems or their commitment to social justice.

14
Developing Justice Oriented Citizens:

Bayside Students For Justice
In a comprehensive urban high school on the West Coast, a group of teachers developed
the Bayside Students for Justice curriculum as part of a multi-school program tying school-
based academic work to educational experiences in the community. Inspired by the United
Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, these teachers implemented the Students for Justice
curriculum with students diverse in ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status, 40 percent of
whom were living in public housing (see Methods section for complete demographics).
Bayside Students for Justice aimed to develop community activists. As one of the
teachers for this program put it, “My goal is to turn students into activists [who are] empowered
to focus on things that they care about in their own lives and to…show them avenues that they
can use to achieve real social change, profound social change.” The program advanced a justice
oriented vision of citizenship seeking to teach students how to address structural issues of
inequity and injustice and bring about social change. A program developer explained that:
A good citizen actively organizes with other people [to address] causes of injustice
and suffering…A good citizen understands the complexities of social issues,
political issues, and economic issues, and how they are tied together, and is not
always willing to accept the definition of a problem as presented to them by
politicians.
Some students in Bayside Students for Justice studied whether SAT exams are biased and
created a pamphlet pointing out the weaknesses of the test in adequately predicting future
student success in college. They distributed the pamphlet to the school and surrounding
community. Another group examined child labor practices worldwide and the social, political,
and economic issues these practices raise. These students held school-wide forums on their
findings in an effort to inform students—many of whom wear the designer clothes and shoes
manufactured by the corporations that the group investigated—of the child labor practices of
these corporations. They also called on school officials to be aware of the labor practices
employed by manufacturers from which the school purchased T-shirts and athletic uniforms.
Jason’s observation—typical of students interviewed about their experience—reflects the
program’s emphasis on justice: “It’s amazing how all this exploitation is all around us and stuff;
I mean we are even wearing clothes and we don’t have [any] idea who makes them, how much
they’re paid, or where they work.” A third group investigated what they found to be a dearth of
adequate education programs in juvenile detention centers, eventually making a video to
publicize their findings. In a presentation to the school, this group reported that “Instead of
buying books, they used money to put bars on windows [that] don’t even open.” “We wanted to
show that not all the kids in there are that bad,” one of the students said, “If our youth is the
future of our country, then we’d better take care of [them] even if they’re in trouble.”
The teachers of the Bayside Students for Justice program believed that having students
seek out and address areas of injustice in society would:
• sensitize students to the diverse needs and perspectives of fellow citizens

• teach students to recognize injustice and critically assess root causes of social
problems; and
• provide students with an understanding of how to change established systems and
structures.
15
Bayside Students for Justice, like Madison County, was successful in meeting many of the
curriculum planners’ stated goals. Bayside students, for example, also noted the importance of
making their classroom learning meaningful. One Bayside Students for Justice class member
reported that “I don’t like to learn just by reading because it goes in one ear and out the other;
but in this class we can really make a difference.” Others noted that: “This class was more
exciting because it was more real,” “We were out there instead of just with our heads in the
books,” and “I liked feeling like we could do something positive.” Ayisha spoke about the
connection this way: “Before this experience, I thought school was just about passing this test or
that test…Now I finally see [that] you can use your knowledge of history to make a better
world.” Also, like their Madison County counterparts, Bayside students indicated an increased
sense of civic efficacy (+0.47) likely owing to their experiences in the community, and an
increased belief that government had a responsibility to help those in need (+0.29).
But while the Bayside and Madison County curricular experiences shared a number of
features, other aspects of the curriculum, the goals, and the impact on students differed
significantly. For example, survey results from Bayside reflected the program’s emphasis on
critical social analysis and on understanding political forces that affect social policy (see Table
3). Students reported significant increases on items measuring students’ ability to consider
structural explanations for poverty (+0.28) and on their interest in politics and political issues
(+0.33) – scales on which Youth In Public Service students showed no change. Conversely,
Bayside students did not demonstrate gains in their knowledge about particular community
groups or about the technical challenges and possibilities associated with particular policies and
initiatives while the Youth in Public Service students showed evidence of progress in these
areas. Students who participated in Madison County Youth In Public Service reported
statistically significant (p<.05) gains on survey items linked to leadership skills, vision, and
knowledge related to civic participation (as well as in their sense of personal responsibility to
help others) while Bayside students did not.
Our case study of Bayside helps us understand the reasons for these different outcomes.
Specifically, at the center of Bayside’s approach were commitments to critical and structural
social analysis, to making the personal political, and to collective responsibility for action.
Critical and Structural Social Analysis

The class that best illustrates Bayside Students for Justice's focus on critical analysis
and social critique was the one led by Nadia Franciscono, a veteran social studies teachers and
one of the Bayside Students For Justice founders. Ms. Franciscono’s sees an understanding of
social justice as an essential component of informed citizenship. Adorning her classroom walls
are several posters with quotations from well-known educators, religious leaders, and social
critics. Bishop Dom Helder Camara: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When
I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Paulo Freire: "Washing one's
hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful
not to be neutral."
Ms. Franciscono had her students study a variety of manifestations of violence in their
community, including domestic violence, child abuse, and gang violence. They arrived at this
choice through a process in which the teacher had them "map" their communities (to gain a
sense of what issues affected their own lives and the lives of others) and write about an issue
that deeply angered or affected them. Using a weighted vote, students came up with violence as
an issue they found both common across their lives and deplorable in its social consequences.

16
Their work on this topic was combined with a domestic violence curriculum the teacher decided
to use and a three-day retreat on violence prevention organized by the violence prevention
group “Manalive/Womanalive.”
In class, they focused on the causes and consequences of violence in their lives and in
their community. They began by sharing stories of their own experiences with violence (at
home, in their neighborhood, at school). One student, for example, talked about a shooting
incident she had witnessed several blocks from her house. Another wrote about his experience
with domestic violence in his family. What made this teacher's approach relatively unique,
however, was not the focus on violence; many teachers discuss violence with students in urban
classrooms.1 What made the approach unique was the way this teacher engaged students in a
discussion of social, political, and economic forces that contribute to violence.
In one classroom activity, students compared demographic data on per capita income
broken down by neighborhood with data on the prevalence of violent crime also broken down
by neighborhood. Students also explored different beliefs about violence expressed by
politicians, writers, the media, and community groups and organizations. At virtually every
stage of the curriculum, their own stories and incidents of violence reported in the media were
examined in relation to broader social, political, and economic forces. Students used their own
and their classmates’ experiences as a means for exploring ways to prevent violence and
promote human rights and social justice. In another class session, for example, Ms. Franciscono
asked “What does violence reveal about what else is going on and how can we fix it?” The
class then created a reverse flow chart, starting at the bottom where an incident of domestic
violence had occurred and connecting it to events and forces that might have provoked the
violence. One student, Tameka, posited, “There must have been a lot of tension in the house.”
The following exchange ensued:
Teachers: And what might have led to that much tension?

Keri: Maybe Dad lost his job
Hector: And then he started drinking
Keri: Maybe there’s no money
Teacher: We can’t really know, right, but there could be a lot of pressure on
these people right now.
Through this and similar discussions, students focused their thinking on relationships between
structural dynamics and the behavior of individuals.14
Making the Personal Political

At the same time that structural dynamics were examined in relation to individual
behavior, personal responsibility also received substantial attention. For example, the retreat
that the Bayside Students For Justice attended on violence prevention taught students to work
hard at controlling anger and stressed the need to always consider the consequences of their
actions. Many character traits of a personally responsible citizen are important to Bayside’s
enactment of the justice oriented citizen.
1
In fact, violence prevention lessons are often part of programs that might easily be characterized as
developing personally responsible citizens rather than justice oriented citizens (see “Making the Personal
Political” below).
17
However, unlike many other programs that emphasize personal responsibility (like the
character education programs we described earlier), Bayside’s approach did not merely exhort
students to adopt certain values or behaviors such as self-control, honesty, punctuality, and
caring for others; it also included an implicit critique of the way society is structured and
encouraged students to examine the relationship between those structures and the way
individuals behave. Approaches like those used by Nadia Franciscono challenge a conservative
focus on personal responsibility without rejecting the basic premise that how children and adults
behave is important. These approaches conclude that an individual’s character does matter, but
that character can best be understood – and changed – through social analysis and attention to
root causes of social injustices. The program seeks to enhance students’ understanding of
society rather than simply giving students a list of values they are to embrace and behaviors
they are magically to adopt.
Under the Manalive curriculum, Franciscono’s students discussed social, political, and
economic factors that reinforce notions that men are superior to women and that they should
enforce that superiority if it is challenged. As a result, some men turn violent and some women
learn to tolerate their violence. Thus, in addition to talking about how to take greater
responsibility for improving their own behavior with respect to violence and anger,
Franciscono’s students talked about their own experiences with violence in order to better
understand and develop strategies to change institutions, structures, or conditions that cause or
encourage violent behavior.
Contrasting this curricular approach with the Character Counts! Coalition’s take on how
to avoid violence, it becomes clear the ways Bayside Students for Justice incorporates important
aspects of the personally responsible citizen into its emphasis on both understanding unjust
social contexts and pursuing just ones. Recall that the Character Counts! coalition advocates
respect, good manners, dealing peacefully with anger, and so on. Franciscono points out the
limitations of this version of personal responsibility for teaching what she considers to be good
citizenship by highlighting what she sees as the simplistic questions and answers that character
education poses. She sees character educators making fallacious assumptions: “If I were
individually responsible, the world would be a better place. There wouldn’t be racism. There
wouldn’t be sexism…I think the authentic self is lovely [but] you get trained in these roles.”
If there is a lesson to be learned about personal responsibility for Franciscono, it is that
the personal is political, that personal experiences and behavior both result from and are
indicators of broader political forces. For Bayside Students For Justice, personal responsibility
requires that one study and seek to change these forces. With this recognition, Franciscono is
able to structure curriculum that promotes citizens who are both personally responsible and
justice oriented.
Collective Responsibility for Action

Not only do students learn about ways that individual behavior often results from
societal factors, they also learn that social change is the product of collective effort. Even
before students started the research and service aspects of their projects, their teacher noted that,
through the process of community mapping and choosing their topic, students had begun to
think of themselves differently. They had begun to see themselves as part of a youth
community with the potential to transform and improve society to make it more just. One
student put it this way:

18
[How] can I make a difference? One person with good intentions in a bad world cannot
make a difference. This is what the structure of our society makes me believe. Yet, I
know that if I take the stand others will follow.
Consistently, in interviews and written assignments for class, students demonstrated their
understanding of a collective rather than individual vision for effecting change. After listening
in class to the song, "We Who Believe in Freedom" by Sweet Honey in the Rock, one young
man wrote that: “whether the struggle is big or small it should be everyone's responsibility
together…. Movements are not about me, they're about us." Another student—a football
player—observed that there’s “a lot of camaraderie on the field, but in the classroom, it seems
like everyone works as an individual to better themselves. In this class, we’re working as a
group to better everything around us.”
Thus, in contrast to programs that seek to teach that "one person can make a
difference," Bayside Students For Justice emphasized the need to address social
problems collectively.
The Political Significance of Different Conceptions of Citizenship:

Some Comparisons
Both Madison County Youth in Public Service and Bayside Students for Justice were
effective at achieving goals consistent with their respective underlying conceptions of
citizenship. Yet our qualitative and quantitative data regarding these programs demonstrate
important differences in impact. Youth in Public Service appeared to have a powerful impact
on students’ capacities for and commitments to civic participation. Students could detail the
skills they used (conducting polls, interviewing officials, making presentations, reading
legislation) as well as the knowledge they gained about how government works. Survey
measures of students' sense of personal responsibility to help others, their vision of how to help,
and their leadership efficacy show significant changes (see Table 4). Especially notable in both
the survey and interview data was the change in students' confidence that they had the
knowledge or "social capital" to make things happen in the community. Interviews,
observations, and examples of student work all reinforced the survey finding of a dramatic
(+.94) increase in students’ sense that they had knowledge of what resources were available to
help with community projects and of how to contact and work effectively with community
organizations to mobilize those resources. This confidence grew out of their involvement in
substantive projects that required frequent interaction with multiple community actors and
agencies.
In addition, Madison County students spoke extensively during interviews about the
micro-politics and technical challenges associated with their projects. “I thought there was
cooperation amongst the departments,” one Madison student told us, “but then the more we got
into it the more I realized Person One is in charge of A, B, and C and Person Two is in charge
of X, Y, and Z.” Students were frustrated that various departments did not work well together
and with what they identified as “turf issues.” Many noted a poor working relationship between
the County and the City.
We did not, however, see evidence that the Youth in Public Service program sparked
interest in or conveyed knowledge of broad social critiques and systemic reform. As noted in
the discussion of the politics of participatory citizenship, Madison students tended to downplay
or ignore explicitly political or ideologically contentious issues. They were not able to talk
19
Table 4. Educating for Different Kinds of Citizenship
PRE -P OST C H A N G E
MADISON CTY. BAYSIDE

YOUTH IN STUDENTS
FACTORS PUBLIC FOR
SERVICE JUSTICE
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP OTHERS .21* .09

KNOWLEDGE/SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR .94** .17
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LEADERSHIP EFFICACY .31** .12
INTEREST IN POLITICS .03 .33*

STRUCTURAL/INDIVIDUAL EXPLANATIONS -.10 .28*
FOR POVERTY
*p < .05; **p < .01
about how varied interests and power relationships or issues of race and social class might be
related to the lack of consensus on priorities and the inability of these varied groups to work
effectively together. For example, Mark, a Madison County student explained that:
A lot of people have preconceived notions that [community work] is so political…

that… everything [is] divided between Republicans and Democrats, [but] people don’t
realize that…what your political agenda is doesn’t really matter because when you’re
helping out in the community, you’re not helping a party, you’re helping a person.
Since such issues were not discussed as part of the curriculum, it is not surprising that students’
perspectives on the structural and individual causes of poverty, for example, did not change as a
result of their participation. Nor did their interest in talking about or being involved in politics
change.
To a much greater degree, Bayside’s students talked about the need for forms of civic
involvement that addressed issues of social justice and macro-level critique of society. When
asked whether violence prevention programs like the Manalive retreat the students attended
could eliminate violence, Desiree eagerly praised the program but then added:
There’s some things that you see out there, the struggle [when] people are trying to do
their best but still they’re being brought down by society, and I think that’s very
troublesome.

20
Other students also emphasized the need to address root causes of problems such as poverty,
governmental neglect, and racism. After telling the class about his cousin who was arrested for
carrying a weapon, Derrick wondered aloud to the class about how best to proceed:
It would be great if nobody had weapons but where does [the violence] begin? If the
police are discriminating [and] if I can’t get a job…there’s going to be a lot of
anger…The police aren’t going to act better because [I’m] trying to make my
neighborhood better.”
And Tamika put it this way: “Lots of people want to be nice [but] if you don’t got food for your
kids, how nice is that?”
Thus, compared with students from Madison County, students who took part in the
Bayside Students For Justice curriculum appeared to emphasize social critique significantly
more and technocratic skills associated with participation somewhat less. For example, students
were more likely at the end of the program than at the beginning to posit structural explanations
for social problems (stating, for example, that the problem of poverty resulted from too few jobs
that pay wages high enough to support a family rather than being a result of individuals being
lazy and not wanting to work). They were more likely than their Madison County peers to be
interested in and want to discuss politics and political issues, and they were more likely to seek
redress of root causes of difficult social ills. As one student told us after several months in the
Bayside program, “when the economy’s bad and people start blaming immigrants or whoever
else they can blame, they’ve got to realize that there are big social, economic, and political
issues tied together, that it’s not the immigrants, no it’s bigger than them.”
To the extent that Bayside students learned about participatory skills, they focused on
extra-governmental social activism that challenged rather than reinforced existing norms (such
as community organizing or protesting). Evidence from observations, interviews, student work,
and surveys of Bayside’s students did not, show an increase in students’ knowledge about
particular community resources. Unlike their Madison County peers, Bayside students’ sense
that they were effective community leaders (knowing how to run meetings, for example)
remained unchanged. Nor was there any increase in students’ personal responsibility to help
others (as opposed to their inclination for collective action for change that was frequently
expressed during interviews).
Thus, programs that successfully educate for democracy can promote very different
outcomes. Some programs may foster the ability or the commitment to participate while others
may prompt critical analysis that focuses on macro structural issues, the role of interest groups,
power dynamics, and/or social justice. And these differences often are politically significant.
Indeed, answering the question "Which program better develops citizens?" necessarily engages
the politics that surround varied conceptions of citizenship because it begs a definition of a
better citizen. Those who view civic participation as of primary importance would likely view
the Madison County Youth In Public Service program as extraordinarily effective.
Alternatively, those educators who believe that students should learn how to examine social
structures and deliberate principles and practices of justice might prefer participants in the
Madison County program to couple their community action with talk about the need for
structural change, about methods used historically to bring change about (those employed by
various social movements, for example), or about social injustice.15
The social context and political norms of a given community can also shape curricular
decisions and the impact of curriculum on students. Bayside and Madison County, for example,
are very different communities. It may well be that Bayside’s urban school environment
21
exposed students to more forms of injustice and rhetoric related to injustice than Madison
County students encountered in their largely homogeneous and middle-class community. This
exposure, in turn, may have made it more likely that Bayside students would gravitate towards
justice oriented themes than that students from Madison County would do so 16. The differing
political climates certainly influenced teacher’s options. This was evident, for example, in the
reaction of the Youth In Public Service Director to the social critique focus of Bayside Students
For Justice and other groups (who met three times during our study to discuss their programs
with each other). She told us: “If my superintendent or board heard me saying what you all are
saying, I’d be fired.” When it comes to politically contentious topics, context matters. The
ways that contexts shape both the constraints placed on teachers and the curriculum’s impact on
students clearly deserves extensive study.
Conclusion
Proponents of the democratic purposes of education, especially advocates of
participatory and justice oriented goals, frequently complain that they are fighting an uphill
battle (Wood, 1993; Cuban & Shipps, 2000; Goodlad, 1979; Clark & Wasley, 1999).
Traditional academic priorities and the current narrow emphasis on test scores crowd out other
possibilities (Meier, 2000; Noddings, 1999; Ohanian, 2002). Given public schools’ central role
in helping to shape citizens, this conflict clearly is worthy of attention.
But what kind of citizens are the schools trying to shape? As educators interested in
schooling’s civic purposes, we maintain that it is not enough to argue that democratic values are
as important as traditional academic priorities. We must also ask what kind of values. What
political and ideological interests are embedded in or are easily attached to varied conceptions
of citizenship? Varied priorities–personal responsibility, participatory citizenship and justice
oriented citizenship–embody significantly different beliefs regarding the capacities and
commitments citizens need in order for democracy to flourish; and they carry significantly
different implications for pedagogy, curriculum, evaluation, and educational policy. Moreover,
since ways educators advance these visions may privilege some political perspectives regarding
the ways problems are framed and responded to, there is a politics to educating for democracy –
a politics that deserves careful attention.
Our study of Madison County Youth in Public Service and of Bayside Students for
Justice demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between programs that emphasize
participatory citizenship and those that emphasize the pursuit of justice. While each program
was effective in achieving its goals, qualitative and quantitative data regarding these programs
demonstrated important differences in each program’s impact. The study indicates that
programs that champion participation do not necessarily develop students’ abilities to analyze
and critique root causes of social problems and visa versa (See Kahne, Chi, and Middaugh,
2003 for a study that comes to a similar conclusion). Although those committed to the
democratic purposes of education may extol the value of linking priorities related to
participation and justice, our study indicates that this outcome is not guaranteed. If both goals
are priorities, those designing and implementing curriculum must give both explicit attention.
Similarly, as noted earlier, related research has found that initiatives that support the
development of personally responsible citizens may not be effective in increasing participation
in local or national affairs. In fact, efforts to pursue some conceptions of personal responsibility
appear to further a politically conservative vision of the role of government and the need for

22
structural change. Indeed, there are some indications that this curriculum and associated policy
undermines efforts to prepare participatory and justice oriented citizens.
From the standpoint of research and evaluation, the implications for those interested in the
development of democratic values and capacities are significant. Studies that fail to reflect the
varied range of educational priorities in relation to democratic values and capacities will tell only
part of the story. Moreover, because the desirability of many politically relevant outcomes is
tightly tied to one’s political preferences, consensus among scholars regarding “right” answers or
sometimes even “better” answers to many relevant questions may be hard to achieve. Knowing,
for example, whether a student now places greater emphasis on recycling or on environmental
regulation does not enable us to say that a program was effective. However, it does help us
understand the program’s effects.
In acknowledging a lack of “right” answers, we do not mean to imply a sense of
neutrality with respect to varied conceptions of democratic values. Instead, we mean to
emphasize that politics and the interests of varied groups are often deeply embedded in the ways
we conceptualize and study efforts to educate for democracy. Politics and the interests
associated with the varied conceptions therefore require close attention. We can focus on
whether a given curriculum changes students’ sense of personal responsibility, government
responsibility, or employer responsibility, for example. If we ask only about personal
responsibility (and if discussions of personal responsibility are disconnected from analysis of
the social, economic, and political context), we may well be reinforcing a conservative and
often individualistic notion of citizenship. Yet this is the focus of many programs and of their
associated evaluations. If citizenship also requires collective participation and critical analysis
of social structures, then other lenses are needed as well.
Clearly, highlighting the political significance of different curricular choices must be done
with care. Such dialogues may help clarify what is at stake, but raising these issues can also lead to
dysfunctional stalemates and deepen differences rather than prompt more thoughtful inquiry. Yet
not all discord is problematic – when the stakes are high, conflict may be both likely and
appropriate. Indeed, thoughtful analysis requires that those designing curriculum and those
studying its impact are cognizant of and responsive to these important distinctions and their
political implications. The choices we make have consequences for the kind of society we
ultimately help to create.
≈ ≈
This article received Outstanding Paper of the Year Award for Research in Social Studies
Education from the American Educational Research Association (2003) and Best Paper
of the Year Award from the division on teaching and learning of the American Political
Science Association (2003). The research was generously supported by grants from the
Surdna Foundation with additional funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada. The authors also wish to thank Harry Boyte, Pamela
Burdman, Bernadette Chi, Larry Cuban, Jeff Howard, Gordon Lafer, Barbara Leckie,
Bethany Rogers, Robert Sherman, Dorothy Shipps, Jim Toole, and several anonymous
reviewers. The authors are solely responsible for any and all conclusions. They can be
reached at: joelw@uottwa.ca, (613)562-5800, x4161; jkahne@mills.edu, (510)430-3275.
References
Ayers, W., hunt, J. A., & Quinn, T. Eds. (1998). Teaching for social justice. New York: The
New Press and Teachers College Press
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Barber, B. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone: The politics of education and the future of
America. New York: Ballantine Books.
Barber, B. (1998). A place for us: How to make society civil and democracy strong. New York:
Hill and Wang.
Bennett, W. J. (1995). (Ed.). The Moral Compass: Stories for a Life’s Journey. New York:
Simon & Schuster. “Citizenship and Leadership” section.
Bennett, W. J. (1998). The Place to Harvest Patriots. School Administrator. 55(5), 38-40.
Bennett, W. J., Cribb, J.T., and Finn, C.E. (1999). The Educated Child. New York: Free Press.
“Character Education” section, pp.523-539.
Bigelow, W. & Diamond, N. (1988). The power in our hands: A curriculum on the history of
work and workers in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Boyte, H. (1991). Community service and civic education. Phi Delta Kappan. 72 (10), 765-67.
Boyte, H. C. & Kari, N. N. (1996). Building America: The democratic promise of public work.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Butts, R.F. (1988). The moral imperative for American schools: …’inflame the civic temper…
American Journal of Education. 96(2), 162-94.
Callan, E. (1997). Creating citizens: Political education and liberal democracy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Clark, R. W. & Wasley, P.A. (1999). Renewing schools and smarter kids: Promises for
democracy. Phi Delta Kappan. 80(8), 590-596.
Connolly, W.E. (1983). The terms of political discourse. 2d ed. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Counts, G. (1932). Dare progressive education be progressive? Progressive Education 9:257-

63.
Cuban, L. & Shipps, D. Eds. (2000). Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping
with intractable American dilemmas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

24
Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. New Directions for Evaluation,
74, 33-46.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.
Fine, M. (1995). Habits of Mind: Struggling Over Values in America’s Classrooms. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), 327-358.
Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gutmann, A. (1986). Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). What Schools Are For. Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.
Hanna, P. R. (1936). Youth serves the community. New York: D. Appleton-Century.
Isaac, K. (1992). Civics for democracy: The journey for teachers and students. (A project of the
Center for Study of Responsive and Essential Information). Washington D.C.: Essential Books.
Kaestle, C.F. (2000) Toward a political economy of citizenship: Historical perspectives on the
purposes of common schools. In McDonnell, L., Timpane, P.M., & Benjamin, R. Eds.
Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Kahne, J. and Westheimer, J. (in press, 2004). The Limits of Efficacy: Educating citizens for a
democratic society. In Giarelli, J. and Rubin, B. Civic Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kahne, J. & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the Service of What? The Politics of Service Learning.
Phi Delta Kappan. 77(9), 593-599.
Kahne, J., Westheimer, J., & Rogers, B. (2000). Service learning and citizenship: Directions for
research, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Fall, 42-51.
Kahne, J., Chi, B. and Middaugh, E. (2003). Democratic Education: The Untapped Potential of
High School Government Courses. (Under Review). Please contact jkahne@mills.edu for
copies.
Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum: 18 93-19 58. New York:
Routledge.
Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership. 51(3),6-11.
Mann, H. (1838). First Annual Report. Boston: Dutton & Wentworth.
Meier, D. (2000). Will Standards Save Public Education? New Democracy Forum Series.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
National Association of Secretaries of State, (1999). New millennium Project-Phase I: A
nationwide study of 15-24 year old youth. Alexandria, VA: the Tarrance Group.
Newmann, F. (1975). Education for citizen action : challenge for secondary curriculum.
Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Pub. Corp.
Noddings, N. (1999). Renewing democracy in schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 80(8), 579-83.
Ohanian, S. (2002). What Happened to Recess and Why are Our Children Struggling in
Kindergarten. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parker, W. (1996). “‘Advanced’ ideas about democracy: Toward a pluralist conception of

citizen education.” Teachers College Record. 98, 104-125.
Patton, M. Q. (1988). Paradigms and pragmatism. In D. M. Fetterman (ed.), Qualitative

Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution. New York: Praeger.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Rawls, J. ( 1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rugg, H. O. (1921). Reconstructing the curriculum: An open letter to Professor Henry Johnson
commenting on Committee Procedure as illustrated by the Report of the Joint Committee on
History and Education for Citizenship. Historical Outlook, 12, 184-189. Reprinted in Parker,
W. C. ed. (1996). Educating the democratic mind. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Sax, L. J., Astin, A., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. (1999). The American freshman: National
norms for Fall 1999. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. New York: Free Press.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Smith, R. M. (1997). Civic ideals: Conflicting visions of citizenship in U.S. history. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Soder, R., Goodlad, J. I., & McMannon, T. J. (eds.) (2001). Developing democratic character in
the young. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

26
Strike, K. (1999). Perfectionism and Neutrality: A Response to Hostetler. Philosophy of

Education Society Yearbook 1999. http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/1999/strike.asp
(February 9, 2004).
Verba, S. Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volunteerism in
American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2003). Teaching Justice: Indoctrination, Neutrality, and the Need
for Alternatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Chicago, IL.
Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2002). Educating for Democracy in Hayduk, R. & Mattson, K
(Eds.) Democracy’s Moment: Reforming the American Political System for the 21st Century.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2000). Service learning required—but what exactly do students
learn? Education Week, January 26. Back Page Commentary. 42.
Wood, G. (1993). Schools That Work: America’s Most Innovative Public Education Programs.
New York: Plume.
Wynne, E. A. (1986). The great tradition in education: Transmitting moral values. Educational
Leadership. 43(4),4-9.
Youniss, J. & Yates, M. (1997). Community Service and Social Responsibility in Youth.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Authors
Joel Westheimer is University Research Chair, an associate professor of education, and co-
Director of Democratic Dialogue at the University of Ottawa. A former New York City public
schools teacher, he teaches and writes on democracy, social justice, service learning, and
community in education.
Joseph Kahne is the Kathryn P. Hannam Professor of American Studies, a professor of

education, and co-director of the Institute for Civic Leadership, Mills College. A former New
York City public schools teacher, his research, writing, and work with educators concerns the
democratic purposes of schooling and urban school reform.
Table 1. Kinds of Citizens17
Personally Participatory Citizen Justice Oriented

Responsible Citizen Citizen
D
Acts responsibly in Active member of community Critically assesses
E his/her community organizations and/or improvement social, political, and
S efforts economic structures to
C Works and pays taxes see beyond surface
R Organizes community efforts to care causes
Obeys laws for those in need, promote economic
I development, or clean up Seeks out and
P Recycles, gives blood environment addresses areas of
T injustice
Volunteers to lend a hand Knows how government agencies
I in times of crisis work Knows about
O democratic social
N Knows strategies for accomplishing movements and how to
collective tasks effect systemic change
S
Contributes food to a food Helps to organize a food drive Explores why people are
A A drive hungry and acts to solve
M C root causes
P T
L I
E O
N
To solve social problems and To solve social problems and improve To solve social problems
A improve society, citizens society, citizens must actively participate and improve society,
S must have good character; and take leadership positions within citizens must question,
C S they must be honest, established systems and community debate, and change
O U responsible, and law- structures established systems and
abiding members of the structures when they
R M community reproduce patterns of
E P injustice over time
T
I
O
N
S

Table 2. Madison County Youth In Public Service
Number of
FACTORS (Chronbach’s Alpha pre, post) SAMPLE CHANGE PRE-TEST POST-TEST SIG. Students
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO Intervention .21* 4.00 4.21 .01 61
HELP OTHERS (.62, .74) Control -.06 3.99 3.92 .63 37
COMMITMENT TO Intervention .19 4.27 4.46 .06 61
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (.54, .71) Control -.10 3.89 3.99 .54 37
INTEREST IN POLITICS (.81, .81) Intervention .03 3.41 3.44 .55 61
Control -.05 2.76 2.71 .63 37
STRUCTURAL/INDIVIDUAL EXPLANATIONS FOR Intervention -.10 3.13 3.03 .56 32
POVERTY (.59, .61) Control .14 3.37 3.51 .35 37
DESIRE TO WORK FOR JUSTICE (.65, .73) Intervention .07 3.07 3.14 .31 61
Control .03 2.84 2.88 .81 37
CIVIC EFFICACY (.66, .71) Intervention .34** 3.78 4.12 .00 61
Control .10 3.38 3.48 .34 37
VISION (.65, .71) Intervention .30* 2.65 2.95 .01 61
Control .12 2.63 2.75 .35 37
KNOWLEDGE/SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR COMMUNITY Intervention .94** 3.95 4.89 .00 60
DEVELOPMENT (.67, .72) Control -.23 3.13 2.90 .25 37
LEADERSHIP EFFICACY (.78, .81) Intervention .31** 3.60 3.91 .00 61
Control .03 3.57 3.60 .72 37
I WILL VOLUNTEER (.80, .86) Intervention .10 3.59 3.70 .14 61
Control -.09 3.28 3.18 .43 37
FOLLOW THE NEWS (.43, .41) Intervention .24** 3.35 3.59 .00 60
Control -.12 3.22 3.10 .27 37
GOV'T RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE IN NEED Intervention .24 * 3.10 3.34 .05 32
(.68, .61) Control .00 3.28 3.28 1.00 37
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYEES Intervention .09 3.81 3.9 .35 32
(.83, .87) Control -.02 4.14 4.12 .83 37
*p < .05; **p < .01
Table 3. Bayside Students for Justice

Number of
FACTORS (Chronbach’s Alpha pre, post) CHANGE PRE-TEST POST-TEST SIG. Students
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP OTHERS(.62, .74) .09 3.84 3.94 .60 21
COMMITMENT TO .07 3.58 3.45 .77 21

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (.54, .71)
INTEREST IN POLITICS (.81, .81) .33* 2.68 3.01 .02 21
STRUCTURAL/INDIVIDUAL EXPLANATIONS FOR POVERTY (.59, .61) .28* 3.88 4.16 .04 21
DESIRE TO WORK FOR JUSTICE (.65, .73) -.09 3.19 3.10 .54 21
CIVIC EFFICACY (.66, .71) .47* 3.03 3.50 .04 21
VISION (.65, .71) .36 2.43 2.79 .15 21
KNOWLEDGE/SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .17 2.76 2.93 .43 21
(.67, .72)
LEADERSHIP EFFICACY (.78, .81) .12 3.13 3.26 .03 21

.36
I WILL VOLUNTEER (.80, .86) .18 3.10 3.28 .22 21
FOLLOW THE NEWS (.43, .41) .27* 3.13 3.40 .02 21
GOV'T RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE IN NEED (.68, .61) .29* 3.19 3.48 .05 21
EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYEES (.83, .87) -.05 4.37 4.32 .73 21
*p < .05
1
Our desire to respond to prominent educational theories related to democratic ideals and to develop a framework
that practitioners would find both clear and meaningful led us to modify our categories in several ways. For
example, we began this study emphasizing a distinction between “charity” and “change”. We had used this
distinction in earlier writing (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996). Through the course of our work, however, it became
clear that this distinction did not do enough to capture main currents in dialogues of practitioners and scholars
regarding democratic educational goals and ways to achieve them. In addition, once our three categories were
identified, we found that some of our rhetoric failed to clearly convey our intent. For example, we had initially titled
our third category the “social reconstructionist.” As a result of dialogues with practitioners this was changed to the
“social reformer” and finally to the “justice oriented citizen.”
2
We should note here that adherents to the political philosophy of John Rawls also use a language of justice, but
that this perspective is different from (though not necessarily in conflict with) what we describe as a “Justice-
Oriented Citizen.” For Rawlsians, the State’s respect for different conceptions of the good and refusal to endorse
particular conceptions of the good are matters of justice.
3
The strongest proponents of this perspective were likely the Social Reconstructionists who gained their greatest
hearing between the two world wars. Educators like Harold Rugg (1921) argued that the teaching of history in
particular and the school curriculum more generally should be developed in ways that connect with important and
enduring social problems. George Counts (1932) asked, “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?” He wanted
educators to critically assess varied social and economic institutions while also “engag[ing] in the positive task of
creating a new tradition in American life” (262). These educators emphasized that truly effective citizens needed
opportunities to analyze and understand the interplay of social, economic, and political forces and to take part in
projects through which they might develop skills and commitments for working collectively to improve society.
4
For a discussion of the distinction between pursuit of justice oriented citizenship and indoctrination, see
Westheimer & Kahne, 2002 and 2003.
5
Moreover, those with libertarian leanings sometimes argue that the practice of civic virtue and responsible
behavior can diminish the need for democratic governance and that such personal qualities will enable democratic
governments to work effectively.
6
Personal responsibility need not be framed in individualistic and conservative terms. Henry David Thoreau, for
example, conceptualized personal responsibility in ways that were not conservative and one could also imagine
visions of personal responsibility that embodied commitments to collective action. However, as put forward in most
current public discussions related to citizenship, the focus is conservative and individualistic in that it emphasizes
charity, personal morality, and the efforts of individuals rather than working to alter institutional structures through
collective action.
7
We highlight these two programs because, of the four high school programs in the sample, these two were the ones
that most clearly aligned with the two perspectives we wished to investigate (participatory and justice oriented
citizenship). The other two high school programs, while compelling for several reasons, embraced a broader and less
specific democratic vision.
8
During the second year, we also administered pre and post surveys to two control classrooms from Madison
County. These classrooms were also twelfth grade government classrooms, served students of similar academic
ability, and were taught by the same two teachers. An appropriate control classroom was not available in the case of
Bayside.
9
For a discussion of the first year experience and findings see (Kahne & Westheimer, 2004).
10
As an indicator of personal responsibility we used a scale titled, “Personal responsibility to help others.” It
included items that measured students’ individual commitments to recycle, for example. Our measure of
participatory citizenship was titled “Commitment to community involvement.” We also had three different scales
related to social justice. One scale assessed students’ interest in political affairs. Another scale assessed students’
use of “structural vs. individual explanations for poverty.”
Measures of commitment to community involvement, personal responsibility, volunteering, and vision, are adapted
from the National Learning Through Service Survey developed by the Search Institute. Some of these measures, in
turn were adapted from instruments developed by Conrad and Hedin. See Instruments and Scoring Guide of the
Experiential Education Evaluation Project (St. Paul: Center for Youth Development and Research, University of
Minnesota, 1981). Items related to Social Capital and Leadership Efficacy draw on a Leadership measure developed
for the Community Service Leadership Workshop. Contact Jim Seiber, Issaquah School District 411, Issaquah, WA
98027. For a list of all items associated with each scale, please contact the authors.

11
Given the ideological nature of the content of our inquiry, it makes sense for us to be explicit about our own
perspectives with regard to personally responsible citizenship, participatory citizenship, and justice oriented
citizenship. We think each vision has merit. However, although we value character traits such as honesty,
diligence, and compassion, for reasons already discussed, we find an exclusive emphasis on personally responsible
citizenship inadequate for advancing democracy. There is nothing inherently democratic about the traits of a
personally responsible citizen.
From our perspective, the traits associated with both participatory and justice oriented citizens, on the other hand,
are essential. Not every program needs to simultaneously address both sets of goals to be of value. But educators
must attend to both sets of priorities if schools are to prepare citizens for democracy.
12
The descriptions that follow were captured from field notes and audio tapes. The quotations are verbatim. Names
of schools, students, teachers, and geographical references are pseudonyms.
13
In one case, for our measure of civic efficacy, we did not find a statistically significant difference (p=.22). Thus,
while our data indicates statistically significant gains in civic efficacy for students who experienced the Madison
County curriculum, it is not clear that these changes were different than those experienced by students in the control
classrooms.
14
Students in the Bayside program also expressed skepticism of corporate-sponsored civic initiatives (Coca Cola’s
sponsoring of Earth Day activities, for example, or Phillip Morris initiatives to “build our communities”). In
interviews, they reported that, in general, it was unwise to count on businesses to set the tone for improving
communities or solving difficult problems that do not have “making money” or advertising as a goal. A number of
classroom discussions also focused on the differences between political or legislative approaches to environmental
regulations and those voluntarily promoted by private corporations.
15
The distinctions we draw between participatory and justice-oriented citizenship assume a predisposition to the
basic mechanics of legislative democracy common to many school-based programs. For example, the Bayside
Students for Justice curriculum takes seriously the notion that critical analysis can only be fruitful in a democratic
culture. Ms. Franciscono’s students engaged in exercises such as planning a class party by the same means as
Congress uses to pass a bill to teach the fundamentals of the democratic process. Madison County teachers
conducted similar activities as well.
16
From responses on our pre surveys, we know that youth in the two communities started off in different places on
several relevant measures. As detailed in tables 2 and 3, for example, Bayside students were far more likely to offer
structural explanations for poverty than Madison County youth and Madison County youth were much more likely
to express confidence in their knowledge related to community development. What’s particularly interesting about
our post survey results is that they demonstrate that on top of these initial differences, Bayside’s curriculum led
students to even more strongly support structural explanations and Madison County’s curriculum led to students to
hold even greater confidence in their knowledge related to community development.
17
For help in structuring this table, we are indebted to James Toole and a focus group of Minnesota teachers
View publication stats

What Kind of Citizen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Kind of Citizen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Kind of Citizen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

What kind of citizenship? The politics of education for democracy

Article in American Educational Research Journal · January 2004

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

T he notion of democracy occupies a privileged place in our society. Everyone believes

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

What Kind of Citizen?

Three Kinds of Citizens

The Personally Responsible Citizen

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

The Participatory Citizen

The Justice Oriented Citizen

imply an emphasis on particular political perspectives, conclusions, or priorities. (The range of

The Limits of Personal Responsibility

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Pursuit of Participatory and Justice-Oriented Citizens

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Measures and Analysis

Developing Participatory Citizens:

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

• teach students how government worked;

Making Civic Education Meaningful

Teresa, another student, said:

Making a Difference in the Lives of Others

I realized there’s a lot more to government than being a senator or a representative.

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

[See Tables 2 and 3]

A Vision of What to Do and the Knowledge and Skills Needed to Do It

The Politics of Participatory Citizenship

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Developing Justice Oriented Citizens:

• sensitize students to the diverse needs and perspectives of fellow citizens

Critical and Structural Social Analysis

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Teachers: And what might have led to that much tension?

Making the Personal Political

Collective Responsibility for Action

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

The Political Significance of Different Conceptions of Citizenship:

Table 4. Educating for Different Kinds of Citizenship

MADISON CTY. BAYSIDE

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP OTHERS .21* .09

INTEREST IN POLITICS .03 .33*

A lot of people have preconceived notions that [community work] is so political…

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Counts, G. (1932). Dare progressive education be progressive? Progressive Education 9:257-

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Gutmann, A. (1986). Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hanna, P. R. (1936). Youth serves the community. New York: D. Appleton-Century.

Lickona, T. (1993). The return of character education. Educational Leadership. 51(3),6-11.

Mann, H. (1838). First Annual Report. Boston: Dutton & Wentworth.

Parker, W. (1996). “‘Advanced’ ideas about democracy: Toward a pluralist conception of

Patton, M. Q. (1988). Paradigms and pragmatism. In D. M. Fetterman (ed.), Qualitative

Rawls, J. ( 1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures, and

American Educational Research Journal. Volume 41 No. 2, Summer 2004

Strike, K. (1999). Perfectionism and Neutrality: A Response to Hostetler. Philosophy of