Civic-Related and Social Outcomes of Schooling: Insights from Large-Scale International Assessments Prof. dr. Judith Torney-Purta Human Development University of Maryland USA

I hope to convince you that: Acquiring social and civic competences makes an important contribution to –each student’s own well being and future –schools, communities and societies Social and civic outcomes –are observable and measurable –can be fostered by educational programs Large scale assessments can raise awareness But processes of change take place on the school level.

My aims are to present: The dimensions of those competences and associated personal and social resources The aspects of the school that have a major role in enhancing these competences –A discourse community –A participatory community Examples from cross-national assessments –Going beyond country rankings to patterns of findings –How school contexts can develop these competences Evidence that attention to the civic dimensions of schooling prepares young people with –civic knowledge, personal resources, and interpersonal skills that contribute to their own futures and the society’s future in a complex and diverse world.

This is a multidimensional concept of personal and social resources: Resources important in contributing to individual and public well being in the civic domain include –Basic civic and societal content knowledge –Skills in understanding written texts (in the media) –A moderate level of trust in the political system –Positive orientations toward equality/non-exclusion –Sense of efficacy, both personal and collective –Ability to respectfully discuss issues with others who hold different opinions –Acceptance of norms about the value of citizens’ participation

This is a brief history of the conceptualization of the field: “Political socialization” research began in 1960s –the interdisciplinary study of young people’s political attitudes and development of survey measures Studies of “civic education” in 1970s –first IEA Civic Education Study –added measures of knowledge and cognition for students and surveys for teachers/headmasters “Civic or political engagement” since 1990s –with globalization, migration, fall of communism –includes the cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral –IEA’s CIVED99 Study and IEA’s ICCS09 Study

These are the details of the IEA Civic Education Study-CIVED: Mid-1990s CIVED Phase 1 –An international consensus process achieved agreement on concepts for a test/survey and developed the Octagon Model 1999 CIVED Phase 2 –Nationally representative samples of 14-year-olds were tested in 28 countries (primarily in Europe) –94,000 students; nearly 2500 schools. –90 minute test/survey –In-depth further analysis since 2001

The Octagon Model served as a basis for CIVED and ICCS:

These countries tested at age 14 in the CIVED Study: Australia, England, United States Belgium (French), Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden Hong Kong (SAR) Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia Chile, Colombia

These are details of ICCS (International Civics and Citizenship Study): Similar populations tested in 2009 in 38 countries (Schulz et al, 2010) –Did not include a first phase –Similar topics/questions –U.S. did not participate; Netherlands did –Sweden, England in both studies Today’s presentation focuses on CIVED –More opportunities for in-depth analysis –Some scales that were not carried forward

These content domains were covered in the two studies: In CIVED 1999 [Content Knowledge, Civic Skills, Attitudes] –Fundamentals of Democracy, Democratic Institutions and Citizenship –National Identity and International Relations –Social Cohesion and Diversity In ICCS 2009: [Civic Knowledge, Attitudes] –Civic Society and Systems –Civic Principles –Civic Participation –Civic Identities

This is an illustration of a skills item in the CIVED instrument: Cartoon Interpretation Item

What resources for civic participation do adolescents in different countries possess? What clusters or profiles of attitudes exist among adolescents? What are the school and classroom correlates of valued outcomes across and within countries? Are traditional and interactive teaching conflicting or reinforcing? The next sections present results in relation to four questions:

What Resources for Civic Participation Do Adolescents in Different Countries Possess? Selected CIVED countries

Mean Support Norms of Conventional Citizenship Support Norms of Social-Movement Citizenship Support for Ethnic Minority Rights PortugalEngland US Portugal Italy Portugal USItaly Norway USNorway, Finland, Sweden 10.0Latvia GermanyGermany Sweden CzechR Italy Czech Republic Latvia Estonia Estonia Czech Engl Norway Sweden England Estonia Latvia Germany Finland Eleven Countries’ Means on 3 Civic “Resources” International Means = 10.0, SDs = 2.0

What Clusters or Profiles of Attitudes Exist among Adolescents in Different Countries? Analysis of CIVED Data

Specific Research Questions: RQ1: Are there groups/clusters of adolescents with distinctive patterns of attitudes? RQ2: How do distributions of cluster membership differ by country? RQ3: How do individual characteristics, beliefs and school context relate to cluster membership?

Person-Centered Analysis of CIVED Data Describing how attitudes are integrated within individual adolescents Analysis to accomplish this –Cluster analyses using 12 attitudinal variables from IEA CIVED survey data –2 step Cluster Analysis with 12 attitudes scales –Described cluster with “mottos” –30, year-olds from 10 countries Western European: Australia, England, Finland, Sweden, U.S. Eastern European: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia

Next Figure: Cluster Patterns for 5 Countries Sharing the Western Europe Tradition Based on the following scales (Mean 10, SD 2): Support for Ethic/Minority Rights Support for Immigrant Rights Support for Women’s Rights Cynicism Internal Political Efficacy Protectionist Attitudes (Nationalism) Positive Attitudes to Nation (Patriotism) Trust in Government Institutions Trust in the Media Norms of Conventional Citizen Participation Norms of Social Movement Participation

Parallel Cluster Group 1 Social Justice Cluster –Support for minority and immigrant rights –Low support for norms of conventional or protest action –Motto: “I believe in rights for all but do not feel obligated to do much about it.”

Parallel Cluster Group 2 Conventionally Political Cluster –High trust in government institutions; –High political self efficacy; –Believe in norms of conventional and social oriented citizen action; –Protectionist and patriotic in Eastern Europe –Also support social justice in Western Europe –Motto: “I believe in my country and will support the status quo with expected political and civic activities.”

Parallel Cluster Groups 3 and 4 Indifferent Cluster –All attitudes very close to the mean –Will do the minimum expected Disaffected Cluster –More negative than Indifferent but not extreme Motto for both clusters: –“I have better ways to spend my time than thinking about politics, but I won’t do anything rash.”

Parallel Cluster Group 5 Alienated Cluster (Anti-Social Justice) –Uniformly negative attitudes about rights for minorities and immigrants –Trust 1 ½ SDs below the international mean –Motto: I’m angry about the immigrants and minority groups in my country, and I don’t trust the government. I have the right to do what I want.”

Distributions of Cluster Groups in Western Europe

A Focus on the Alienated Cluster About 7% across countries are Alienated and hold negative inter-group attitudes 25% of these Alienated youth think it is “not important to obey the law” –1% for Conventional; 6% for Disaffected Potentially for illegal protest (block traffic): –Alienated cluster members expect to protest –Social Justice cluster members do not expect to protest

Individual and Proximal Characteristics of Alienated Students Alienated Cluster members likely to: –Be male –Lack a sense of collective efficacy in the school community –Lack the experience of a respectful climate for discussion in their classrooms –Spend evenings “hanging out” with peers –No differences by SES in Western Europe

Summary Intergroup attitudes are part of emergent citizenship and shaped in part by schools –this is the age cohort now young adults –Many teachers are unprepared for anti- racism education Many young people believe “citizens should behave democratically” but are unwilling to engage in action

What are the School and Classroom Correlates of Valued Student Outcomes or Resources Within Countries? Data from selected CIVED and ICCS countries

Focusing on the “Discourse Community” and “Participatory Community” in Relation to Intercultural Attitudes: The Discourse Community at School: –Experiencing an Open Climate for Class Discussion (CIVED) –“Students feel free to express opinions in class even when they differ from other students;” and “Teachers respect our opinions and encourage us to express them during class.” (2 of 6 items) The Participatory Community at School: –Confidence in the Value of School Participation (CIVED) –“Lots of positive changes happen in this school when students work together” and “Students acting together can have more influence on what happens in this school than students acting alone.” –Highly similar results for other resources, such as norms of citizenship

Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by High/Low Open Classroom Climate in Four Countries (CIVED99) (All differences significant, p <.001)

Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by High/Low Open Classroom Climate in Four Countries (ICCS09) (All differences significant, p <.001)

Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by High/Low Confidence in the Value of Students’ Participation in School in Four Countries (CIVED 99) (All differences significant, p <.001)

Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by High/Low Confidence in the Value of Students’ Participation in Schools in Four Countries (ICCS09) (All differences significant, p <.001)

Are Traditional and Interactive Teaching in Conflict with Each Other or Reinforcing? CIVED Data from the United States [Replicated in 3 Post-Communist countries]

Comparison of Educational Groups –Identify groups reflecting different experiences in civic/social studies classrooms –Open classroom climate for discussion (5 item scale) Sample: “Students feel free to express opinions in class even when their opinions are different from most of the other students.” –Traditional teaching (4 item scale) Sample: “Teachers lecture and the students take notes.”

The Educational Groups that Were Compared Confidential until Release of Report

Mean Civic Skills Score by Educational Group in the United States

Mean Attitude toward Ethnic Minority Rights by Educational Group in the United States

Summary of Differences by Educational Group Interactive and lecture-based experience in civic education classroom both relate to higher scores on nearly a dozen civic/social outcomes Students who have neither experience score lower on the outcomes Lecture-based alone is never superior to interaction alone (or to interactive combined with traditional)

What Can We Conclude about the Everyday Life of Schools?

We have learned about enhancing the discourse and participatory communities : Explain and insist on ground rules of respect for diversity of opinion Scaffold discussions to operate with these rules Promote shared goals and sense of identity –with both school and local communities Recognize peripheral and direct participation Identify problems and promote a sense of collective efficacy in solving them Equip students with cognitive skills –listening to others and taking their perspectives

We also know about the challenges: Educators are often wary about establishing an open climate for classroom discussion of issues –Curriculum standards emphasize knowledge –Interactive methods are risky without scaffolding –Intergroup tensions, structural factors and institutional resistance have an influence –Alienated students can be challenging

Some are proposing alternative paths to quality learning and engagement: Accountability Path: –Human capital approach with external referents –Test-based evaluation/benchmarks –Accountability to outside standards Participatory Path: –Internal/ self-evaluation; –Democratic school/ classroom climate –Feedback within schools on success of models for improvement –An important place for school inspection

In conclusion, there is a place in this process for school inspection: Begin with the premise that social and civic capacities along with citizenship competences contribute to both –students’ development as individuals and –their schools, communities & societies (directly and indirectly) Value what students and educators say about their classroom and school contexts Address an appropriately broad view of emergent citizenship and civic resource Develop methods to assess and give feedback on the discourse and participatory communities

Thanks Some organizations supporting the CIVED analyses: –U.S. Department of Education and German DFG –W.T. Grant Foundation –Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools (U.S) –Council of Europe’s Democratic Citizenship Initiative –University of Maryland Individual collaborators in the analyses presented: –Barbara Malak-Minkiewicz, IEA –Carolyn Barber and Jessica Ross, UMKC –Jo-Ann Amadeo, Marymount University –Britt Wilkenfeld, Colorado Department of Education –Gary Homana, Towson University –Wendy Richardson, Richardson Consulting