What is the state of civics today?
For the better part of the last year, The Ronald Reagan Institute has been looking deeply into the latest trends of civics education through their State of Civics series. Their approach gives us an insider look at the civic education initiatives of various states, and to date, they have hosted conversations spotlighting Tennessee, South Carolina, Wyoming, Colorado, and Georgia.
At PACE, one of the areas we focus our learning and experimentation is on civics education and learning. In addition to facilitating the Civic Learning Funder Affinity Group, we learn as much as we can about what’s happening in the civic education field and how philanthropy can play a role. We have been champions of the State of Civics series since it launched in 2021, and we found ourselves getting curious about what they are learning about civics education–particularly at the state level–through the series. I recently had the opportunity to interview the mastermind and moderator of the series, Janet Tran, Director of the Center for Civics, Education, and Opportunity at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Her insights help us understand the trends across the states they feature, the nuances and celebrated differences, and what that might tell us about the road ahead for the field of civic learning. What follows is a lightly edited and condensed transcript of our conversation.
Amy McIsaac: Can you explain what motivated the Ronald Reagan Institute to design and host the State of Civics series?
Janet Tran: It started in the thick of the global pandemic. I mean it when I say that I can’t imagine a job more challenging during that time than being a state superintendent, with little to no guidance as to how to operate schools and the amount of competing priorities and pressures. And yet, through all of this, schools were expected to still commit to a specific mission and prioritize civic learning in some capacity. I think there is a larger amount of attention that is paid to what happens at the federal level than what happens to the state level, but we know that education is generally handled at the state level. So, in light of the pandemic and seeing the leadership out of the governors and the state superintendents, we just had a lot of questions.
There were a few other motivators for us. First, we see students who are very much committed to mobilizing around causes, and it’s interesting to see that there’s this whole generation of students concerned about issues going on. So we wanted to understand what students themselves attribute that to.
We also find that words really matter; but sometimes they don’t. We were curious to understand what else “civics” is going by. Is it going by character education? Is it under the guise of social emotional learning? Service? Digital Citizenship? So we were really interested in understanding when we talked to state superintendents and teachers, what are they framing it as and why?
And then I think something else that is relatively important was that during the pandemic–and for good reason–a national pause occurred in the measurement of civics and all content areas. With students not in the classroom for some time, it made a lot of sense to pause assessment, but we did want to understand how we’re measuring civic education, and you know, do students even know when they’re being assessed?
So we’re really excited we’re at a point where we can aggregate this work, and we’re excited to share and showcase what will be a side by side comparison. We also feel like we’re seeing energy for this out there–at one point we had around 100 pieces of legislation centered on civic education. So, you know, we’re taking a glass half full type of approach in that there is actual excitement to speak about civic learning and civic education in our schools which is not something you would have seen five years ago.
AM: You piqued my interest with your mention of language. PACE has been on a journey to learn more about the language of democracy, so I’m curious — what did you learn through the series about the language around civic education today? And if people are not saying “civic education,” why?
JT: There’s quite a few reasons for that. It won’t surprise you that I think there’s a fair amount of politicization and polarization around this topic. Civics is like democracy–it’s really messy. So, for us to say that there is one way to do it or one way to learn it is really challenging, especially as a spotlight has been put on the schools and schools have been accused of bias or political motivations. Our chiefs and our teachers have had to really take care to make sure that they are keeping fidelity to teach civics while not being political, especially in areas in which they’re under pressure.
Something to note, which is important, is because of federalism, the role of the state chief is sometimes elected and sometimes appointed. And I do think there is more room for courage and more room to stay the course without fear of repercussions from appointed chiefs. It doesn’t mean that they are immune to criticism; it is far from that. Take the controversy around critical race theory, for example. Many of our state chiefs are very committed to having their teachers go through culture conscious training, but they are unable to use some of those words because they will often be accused of indoctrinating students, when in reality they’ve been doing this for quite some time. Similarly, schools will say they want parental involvement and civic engagement but that can be code for parental control, so this is why word choices matter. It’s so easy to sort of fall off that tightrope that these state chiefs are walking. But that word choice is often different for teachers; it’s a little more localized. They’ll do things that are around service and you know, more experiential in nature like going to a museum or staging reenactments. Those pieces can showcase themselves. I think my favorite way of framing civic education is in Tennessee. They frame it as part of literacy and something they need to know, similar to numerical literacy. I think that’s a really helpful frame.
AM: So far in the State of Civics series, you have looked closely at civic education efforts in five states (SC, TN, WY, CO, GA). What surprised or inspired you about what they had in common?
JT: There are great examples across the board, in every state. I think what’s most inspiring are the local efforts and the place-based elements of it. We have so many examples of clubs and community efforts that help build social ties, and I’m really inspired by their ability to bring history alive and make subjects relevant by tapping into local assets. I do think that’s incredibly important to have local museums kind of bear the mantle and take on that role of being a civic space and being an important pillar of the community.
I suppose what they have in common is a perception that they are “extra” and that civics is very extracurricular to what students learn. But the students we talked to in this series shared that these are the fundamentals, these are the things that they have taken away, these are the things they remember from their schooling. So it’s really about thinking about how they have an opportunity to utilize and apply their learning, whether it’s as an Eagle Scout or an interactive class or Palmetto Girls State in South Carolina or another formative experience. I’d be curious as to how we reframe that conversation to make that less “extra” and more core.
Another common piece is dedicated teachers. There’s great work happening in each state. Can we scale it? Can we have teachers showcase what they’re doing and help others who might not have that opportunity? That’s a question we certainly need answers to, especially in this environment. And then, there seems to be some exciting things on the horizon for performance based assessment–more interest and more portfolio-based thinking about this work.
AM: What are you learning about the relationship between state level civics education and federal efforts?
JT: So I don’t know if the last two years have actually been outliers, but I do feel that the pressures and the conversations at the national level have not necessarily been helpful for those who want to pursue and provide high quality civic learning to their students, whether it’s on the right or left. There’s really, really a lot of fear of being misquoted, and we even found that many of the state chiefs are under a little assault, so to speak. They aren’t able to do their work because there’s just so much criticism and pushback every step of the way. They are being criticized and called out because of what is happening in the national conversation. Around every piece, they aren’t able to do the work behind the scenes to prepare their teachers. And actually one of our students in this series spoke about the muting and the canceling and how students themselves are actually concerned about saying the wrong thing or getting canceled. They’re trying to figure out how to have discourse. Now on the other hand, like I said earlier, all of this means we are actually talking about civics education. So it’s a reminder to not forget to continue to emphasize this in spite of all the noise.
AM: Based on what you learned from the series and from your work more broadly, what advice would you give philanthropists either funding civics education work or interested in funding in this area?
JT: I think if democracy is messy, then we need to help our students, teachers, and even our state leaders have the ability to be a little messy too. It can’t be that you take what’s happening in Wyoming and do that in California. It’s really thinking about the capacity to be less tidy and less neat.
In terms of the philanthropic approach to this, we should understand that our kids care and want this. Our teachers care, and they’re committed to this, in spite of increasing responsibilities. And our state chiefs find this a priority. In spite of a million things and low demand for this, they’re doing it. I think philanthropy can help by building an active demand for civics. I don’t think many parents think their kids shouldn’t learn about civics, but they want their kids to get the best job possible, the best scores possible, and civics is going to get in the way of their foreign language requirement or their honors class or whatever the case. So really thinking about what would build that active demand would be helpful in providing the opportunity for leaders at the state level to continue to do this work. I think at least exploring that learning question about why people are leading on civics in spite of a lack of an active demand is worthwhile. Imagine what could be done if parents and leaders were demanding it…
AM: Ok, last question. I’m curious when you zoom out and reflect on the series, what is your biggest takeaway about civic education today?
JT: It looks different in every state–probably as diverse as America itself.
Janet Tran serves as the Director of Learning and Leadership at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute where she is charged with designing the Foundation’s nonpartisan portfolio of civic learning experiences for students. Janet’s civic mission began prior to her work at the Reagan Foundation, serving as a Social Studies and English teacher in South Central Los Angeles.
