Search

Mission statements and public statements of values are widely recognized as important for educational improvement, even if often ignored. The mission statements and supporting documents of Utah's 41 school districts were analyzed to locate prominent themes and significant omissions. An unexpected and disturbing neglect of democratic citizenship aims was found. Recognizing democracy is a complex educational ideal, the author argues for refocusing mission aims on the distinctive qualities of democracy as a way of life to be lived in schools by identifying for both modeling and practice across the curriculum the distinctive manners of democracy beginning with but moving beyond voice and listening.

While traditional civic education in the United States is inextricably linked to notions of a public sphere, this paper argues that the digital era requires a reimagining of this premise. The opaque nature of digital spaces makes it difficult for young people to understand how large of an audience they are interacting with and to what extent a conversation that may feel private is rebounding across public contexts. In this conceptual paper, we (1) use semiotic squares to present publicly private and privately public as two ways to reinterpret traditional presumptions about the role of "the public" in civic education and (2) present the implications of these blended spaces for civic education and civic learning. The paper asks, what does it mean to prepare young people for interaction in the "public" sphere within our classrooms today? By drawing on a vignette of teacher practice, we articulate what civic education could be for students around the world in the 21st century.

McGuire, Stevahn, and Bronsther (2019) focused on civic education in elementary grades, an important but sorely missing topic in schools. Using Storypath, a simulation-like approach to address the housing affordability in Seattle, the authors showed how motivated and engaged students were with the topic. A major strength of the study is the authors' acknowledgment of the perils of children being denied of the opportunity to acquire the skills and dispositions that support participation in democratic social life. Also, they integrated civic learning with social and emotional learning (SEL) in a meaningful way. However, I argue in this response paper that both civic learning and SEL need an equity and social justice focus because our current democracy does not adequately care for everyone. Finally, I suggest that critical civic empathy could make a meaningful contribution to civic education. [For "Storypath: A Powerful Tool for Engaging Children in Civic Education," see EJ1232257.]

This paper presents the emergent paradigm of the "commons" as an alternative value and action system in the field of education, and it critically draws out the implications of the commons for refiguring education and its potential contribution to democratic transformation. The paper delves into an independent pedagogical community, Little Tree, which is active in early childhood education and care, aiming to explore the ways in which children conduct themselves in accordance with the ethics and the logics of the commons and to show how they thereby unsettle the conventional meaning of citizenship. Proceeding from an enlarged notion of the political, the collective action of children and adults on social relations and subjectivities in their ordinary activities and intercourse in the Little Tree community are explored, and the dominant beliefs and ideas about the political ability of children are contested. This enlarged take on the political is crucial to empowering children and to enhancing their participation in public life. This pedagogical community is taken up as an instance of commoning education, that is, of configuring education as a common good, which is collectively governed by its community on terms of freedom, equality, active and creative participation.

This is a response to Ásgeir Tryggvason's argument that the deliberative critique of the agonistic approach to citizenship education is based on a misreading of the main concepts in agonistic theory--a misreading that has important implications for any attempt to bring closer agonism and deliberation in citizenship education. My aim in this response is to offer some clarifying comments and questions and suggest some further ideas for expanding Tryggvason's analysis, highlighting in particular two perspectives that, in my view, deserve further attention in citizenship education: first, the consequences of cultivating agonistic emotions in the classroom; and, second, the possibilities and limitations of acknowledging what has been called "affective citizenship" as an important element of citizenship education. My response concludes by discussing how affective citizenship education illuminates the debate between agonists and deliberators. [For Ásgeir Tryggvason's paper, "Democratic Education and Agonism: Exploring the Critique from Deliberative Theory," see EJ1178231.]

In this review article, I argue that games are complementary, not self-supporting, learning tools for democratic education because they can: (a) offer "simplified, but often not simple, outlines" (later called "models") of complex social systems that generate further inquiry; (b) provide "practice spaces" for exploring systems that do not have the often serious consequences of taking direct and immediate social, civic, and legal action; and (c) use rules to allow players to explore this aforementioned outline or model by "making decisions and seeing an outcome." To make these arguments, I perform a close reading of three examples of participatory and playful media that could be germane to, but are not designed for, educational settings: the early-20th-century board game "The Landlord's Game," YouTube videos advising about law enforcement encounters, and the dystopian indie game "Papers, Please." [For "The Challenges of Gaming for Democratic Education: The Case of iCivics," see EJ1120056.]

Deliberative models of democratic education encourage the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom (e.g., Hess, 2009); however, they tend to curtail conflicts for the sake of consensus. Agonism, on the other hand, can help support the deliberative model by attending to antagonism in productive ways (Ruitenberg, 2009). In this paper, I present how agonistic deliberation (the infusion of agonism into deliberation) can work as an account of the political that may help empower young people. The paper presents two classic democratic classroom practices--structured academic controversy (SAC) and debate--together as examples of how agonistic deliberation can help students engage politically. This paper suggests that while deliberation can help students learn about political participation, agonistic deliberation (with its focus on conflict) has the potential to help students harness social frustrations into political action.

In response to van Waarden's paper, which denied the possibility of horizontal tolerance between citizens, I argue that tolerance is both possible and often desirable between citizens. I also argue that a more substantive set of constraints are required for justice to be served than mere deference to whatever existing constitutions and laws happen to demand. Furthermore, where van Waarden suggested that politics consists of "a process of negotiating, bargaining, and compromising among groups with conflicting interests," it is hard to see how this vision could motivate any educational intervention to promote people's abilities to speak up for themselves. Put starkly: it is not at all clear why anyone has reason to educate others to potentially outlaw their own way of life on their understanding. I urge instead that the attitude of tolerance be promoted on both Rawlsian and Millian grounds. [For "Teaching for Toleration in Pluralist Liberal Democracies," see EJ1140079.]

In this response, we make the case for the power and promise of scaffolded reading instruction for teaching civic literacy--civic content knowledge and skills needed to both comprehend and take a stand on civic issues at a local, national, or global level. We argue the following: (a) Now, more than ever, students need to develop the skills and will to critically consume and analyze media sources; (b) the Reading Apprenticeship model is a promising approach for teaching students the knowledge and skills to navigate and analyze complex text; and (c) intentional collaboration between literacy and social studies educators (K-12 teachers, teacher educators, and professional development providers) is needed to prepare young people to navigate increasingly complex informational texts. [For "Supporting Students to Read Complex Texts on Civic Issues: The Role of Scaffolded Reading Instruction in Democratic Education," see EJ1274089.]

Darwich (2020) asked "What Kind of Citizens Do Educators Hope Their Students Become?" in her response to "Storypath: A Powerful Tool for Engaging Children in Civic Education" (McGuire et al., 2019). She argued that civics should be rooted in social justice grounded by critical civic empathy, which requires focusing on power and privilege given persistent disparities in caring for all people within our democracy. We agree and here further emphasize the importance of dismantling systems of oppression that block efforts to advance this goal. We also recognize pragmatic complexities in elementary school classrooms that require teacher professional judgment to create conditions for success. These include attending to diverse developmental needs of learners, classroom time constraints, and instructional standards that do not explicitly focus on social justice. We describe how the teacher in McGuire et al. navigated these challenges and call for systemic change to support teachers in routinely engaging all children in experiential civic learning grounded by critical civic empathy. [This article is a response to "What Kind of Citizens Do Educators Hope Their Students Become? A Response to 'Storypath: A Powerful Tool for Teaching Children Civic Learning'" (EJ1255977).]

Although experiential approaches to democracy education are gaining increased support from educators and scholars, few educational resources exist to support youth in constructing and delivering high-quality, evidence-based policy arguments to authentic audiences. Such presentations are often the first time that young people step into the public sphere and speak to public officials; they represent rich opportunities for youth political development and activism. In this paper, we introduce an assessment tool, called the Measure of Youth Policy Arguments (MYPA), which is intended to be a resource for community and school educators. Drawing on data from two years of field-testing and iterative co-design in the context of research-practice partnerships (RPPs), we chronicle the development of the tool and provide evidence about its educational uses in classrooms and community programs. In the discussion section, we explain key decisions in the development of MYPA and how those shaped its appropriateness for certain uses and lack of appropriateness for others.

The article adds to a growing conversation that recognizes and supports young children's civic capabilities, positioning them as citizens-now and not simply citizens in the future. They detail how three different classrooms sought to work with children to engage in social action on behalf of their broader community. This response wonders alongside the authors about how adults can best work with children to support their civic action and proposes that teachers engage children's visions for a more just, humanizing democratic society. The article offers three avenues of action for teachers as they support children's civicness: reflection on our views and experiences with democracy, educating ourselves in the traditions and histories of community organizing, and developing practices that involve children's visions of society. [This article is in response to "That's My Voice! Participation and Democratic Citizenship in the Early Childhood Classroom." For that article, see EJ1274025.]

This paper shares a participatory action research study conducted by a team of researchers at a university laboratory school in collaboration with three classroom teachers and 60 preschoolers. The team engaged in this research in order to examine the ways in which school personnel could generate more authentic community service experiences with, rather than simply for, children. Findings illustrate that with the support of adults, children generated ways to address issues, discussed their ideas with adults, reflected on their actions, and understood that their voices were being heard beyond the school community. With this increased participation, young people were able to show and exercise crucial skills and dispositions for democratic citizenship.

In our response to "Deliberating Public Policy Issues with Adolescents," we address the matter that students seem to be reluctant to changing their minds, opinions, and initial positions in classroom deliberations and instead see such deliberations as an opportunity to perform and publicly announce their preexisting views. We argue that this calls for an increased focus on teaching students how to listen to each other and that such a focus should come in the form of teaching them apophatic listening. We also propose pedagogical practices that could be used for teaching students this particular deliberative skill. [To view "Deliberating Public Policy Issues with Adolescents: Classroom Dynamics and Sociocultural Considerations," see EJ1178229.]

Recent surveys have indicated a worryingly low level of support for democracy among Australian youth and around the world. For example, in the 2017 Lowy Institute Poll, 36% of Australians indicated that, in some circumstances, a nondemocratic government is preferable. Such concerns, while hardly new, have triggered calls for more civic education and civic involvement. Linked to these concerns are discussions about the way new media (including mobile accessibility, the internet, and social media) is reshaping our understandings of public participation in democracy, especially the way that we conceive of the public sphere. Schools are often seen as important sites for the development of civic values in democratic countries. Having the skills and knowledge to navigate the public sphere in a critical way as well as contribute to it meaningfully is an important part of any activist approach to citizenship education. This paper presents one such example of radical citizenship education, Justice Citizens, and presents a framework that fellow critical educators might use to encourage young people to contribute to the public sphere not as citizens-in-waiting but as justice-oriented citizens.

Heggert and Flowers (2019) offer important insights into how social media provides students with important opportunities to engage in meaningful civic engagement and political activism. They argue that students are more politically active than some recent studies would have us believe because they are utilizing social media platforms, methods not accounted for by traditional measures. They further argue that if students are to alter the foundational causes of injustice, educators should adopt a critical pedagogical framework in teaching students to use social media as a means of becoming activists. I agree with the authors' main arguments but take issue with their suggestion that activism should be separated from notions of disobedience. On the contrary, I argue that activism that has as its fundamental goal to get at the roots of injustice must include civil disobedience. Educating for social justice, then, ought to include teaching students the history, theory, and techniques of civil disobedience. [This article is in response to "Justice Citizens, Active Citizenship, and Critical Pedagogy: Reinvigorating Citizenship Education" (EJ1216619).]

By taking the vantage point of agonistic pluralism, the aim is to enter into dialogue with Samuelsson's theoretical development of consensus as an educational aim for classroom discussions. The response highlights three points of interest in the deliberative conception of consensus. The first point relates to the problem of exclusion, which Samuelsson clearly framed as something that concerns deliberative theory and agonistic theory. The second point is about the relation between conflict and consensus and the kind of conflict that is compatible with Samuelsson's idea of consensus. The concluding part of this response is an exploration of how the agonistic concept of hegemony could function as an alternative aim for ending classroom discussions. [This article is in response to "Education for Deliberative Democracy and the Aim of Consensus" (EJ1178323).]

This article is a response to a qualitative study that examined how the indigenous African notion of "ubuntu" informs how some school teachers in a Black township in South Africa conceptualize Western-oriented narratives of democracy. While the study acknowledges important differences in how ubuntu is understood and defined, the author argues that it nonetheless tends to overlook them in order to harness ubuntu as a force for positive social change and national development. The author argues that ubuntu could potentially serve as a powerful cultural force for change, but this requires a context in which some of the moral qualities associated with ubuntu are more widely practiced and visible in communities and in the policies and practices of government at all levels. It also requires a reconceptualization of ubuntu as an inclusive and nonessentialized notion that is responsive to the practical needs of contemporary South African society. [The article is in response to "The Cultural Contours of Democracy: Indigenous Epistemologies Informing South African Citizenship." To view this article, see EJ1120063.]

Due to the current political challenges facing democratic societies, including an apparent presence of populist rhetoric, the question of how political discussions should take place in democratic education is as urgent as ever. In the last two decades, one of the most prominent approaches to this question has been the use of deliberative theory. However, the deliberative approach has been criticized from an agonistic perspective for neglecting the role of emotions in political discussions. Deliberative theorists have in turn responded to this critique and argued that the agonistic approach tends to put too much emphasis on students' emotions and identities in political discussions. Recently, as a contribution to this debate, the idea of assimilating agonism with deliberation has been suggested as a way of overcoming the differences between agonism and deliberative theory. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the educational debate between agonism and deliberative theory by exploring the deliberative critique from the vantage point of agonism. I claim that the deliberative critique of agonism is unfounded and based on a misreading of Mouffe's agonistic theory. Furthermore, I argue that the attempt to assimilate agonism with deliberation is not compatible with Mouffe's agonistic theory.

First, I review the context for the need of new deliberative models, specifically agonistic deliberative models, for public discourse and for use in training students for public discourse. I then highlight five specific points that I trouble and enrich, principally through the work of Giroux, Arendt, Biesta, and Duarte. While I agree that there is great value in Lo's description of the agonistic deliberative model, I advocate for what Biesta would call a weaker model of deliberation, one that sets the conditions for transformative education but one that does not act as an instrument for it. [This article is in response to "Empowering Young People through Conflict and Conciliation: Attending to the Political and Agonism in Democratic Education." To view this article, see EJ1140087.]

In this appreciative response to Jennifer Hauver's article about elementary children's negotiation of analytic frames in deliberative dialogue during input into a school governance decision, Bickmore argues for the value of such agentic, citizenship-relevant learning opportunities in public schools. She points to their unfortunate infrequency (to the detriment of socially just democracy) in economically and racially marginalized communities. The concept of analytic frames is compared with the notion of interests--desires, needs, concerns, and ethical principles--underlying each party's proposals in integrative negotiated conflict resolution theory. Questions are raised about the roles played by cultural context and status inequalities within dialogue groups. Bickmore concludes that both Hauver's research methodology and her pedagogy of listening intently to children show enormous potential for enhancing transformative democratic education. [For "'State Your Defense!' Children Negotiate Analytic Frames in the Context of Deliberative Dialogue," see EJ1162608.]

My response to Samuelsson's (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliberative discussion. Following Ruitenberg's application of Mouffe's critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the "political unconscious" of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderate-liberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have developed this critique of deliberative-democratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative discussion takes a left-of-liberal view of each of Samuelsson's requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practical-pedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response's contribution to the debate is therefore not only to critique deliberative discussion but also--following Samuelsson--to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice. [For "Education for Deliberative Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions," see EJ1100184.]

This response to "Toward a Transformative Criticality for Democratic Citizenship Education" takes a positive and supportive stance toward pressing the arguments forward. By focusing on the communicative components of democratic citizenship education and activist pedagogy, it highlights some of the tensions and difficulties of actually doing this work.

This is a response to Liggett's (2014) call to implement "deliberate democracy" in English language education classrooms. While the concept of participating in deliberate democracy is a solid ideal and worthy of pursuit, I present questions and scenarios that illustrate the complicated nature of the tasks. By sharing my "testimonio" along with the research, I propose that in order for teachers to guide their students' participation in deliberate democratic activities, they must step back and understand the context of the sociocultural interactive space created in the classroom and whether ELL students are able to and/or prepared to speak in an empowered way to engage in this contested interactive space.

This conceptual paper assesses prevalent critiques of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and analyzes content from the CCSS in language arts and literacy to determine whether the standards are likely to support or undermine key democratic aims of education. The authors conclude that critiques of the CCSS have some merit but are generally overstated and misdirected, and the standards give inadequate attention to the development of public autonomy but an ideal amount of attention to development of private autonomy.

This response considers the role of video games in promoting the social and emotional aspects of civic education and engagement. Specifically, it discusses how design choices in iCivics and video games generally may impact students' emotional responses to issues and other people, sense of internal efficacy, and social connectedness. [For "The Challenges of Gaming for Democratic Education: The Case of iCivics," see EJ1120056.]

Video games are the most recent technological advancement to be viewed as an educational panacea and a force for democracy. However, this medium has particular affordances and constraints as a tool for democratic education in educational environments. This paper presents results from a study of the design and content of four iCivics games and their potential to meet the goals of democratic education. Specifically, we focus on the games as designed experiences, the nature and accuracy of the content, and the nature of intellectual engagement in the games. We find that the games, while easily accessible and aligned with standardized curriculum, do not provide opportunities to engage players in deliberative decision making on contemporary issues or to apply concepts from the game world to their role as citizens in training. Further, the game content is more "textbook" than the potentially dynamic and authentic types of civic engagement the medium of games can provide.

This is a response to Ruitenberg's (2015) argument that citizenship-as-equality should be the focus of citizenship education. My aim in the response is to offer clarifying comments and questions and suggest further ideas for expanding her analysis, highlighting in particular two perspectives that deserve more attention: first, the role of emotions in the constitution of political subjectification and the practice of equality; second, the possible openings that might be created when the notion of citizenship-as-equality is utilized as a point of departure to instill more criticality in students' understandings of and feelings about citizenship. [For Ruitenberg's "The Practice of Equality: A Critical Understanding of Democratic Citizenship Education," see EJ1061573.]

This essay proposes a conception of citizenship that highlights its political aspects. Based on the work of Balibar, Rancière, and Biesta, it is argued that democratic citizenship education must include the education of equality. This means that students must have the opportunity to experience not only the membership aspect of citizenship that subjects them to the state but also the democratic aspect of citizenship that positions them as equals to each other and capable of political intervention. The increasing emphasis in state policies on the membership aspect of citizenship must be counterbalanced by an emphasis in education on the democratic aspect of citizenship: the education of equality. The proposed conception of citizenship can be used to evaluate approaches to citizenship education.

This response to Peterson's (2014) "Nonviolent Action as a Necessary Component in Educating for Democracy" enlarges the discussion of the role of the teacher/educator in deciding whether or when it is responsible to facilitate the engagement of students in acts of nonviolent dissent. Ultimately it would seem that the most important of our responsibilities as educators is to provide the moral and ethical foundations and the spaces in which students feel safe and empowered to tap into their own inner teachers. In order to promote the development of active engagement toward a democratic citizenry, including the moral imperative to transform violence, students must be helped toward a holistic understanding of the structural roots of injustice and oppression in their myriad forms. This will go beyond teaching about nonviolence and dissent to include the teaching of the concepts of peace and, by corollary, peacelearning. [For Peterson's "Nonviolent Action as a Necessary Component in Educating for Democracy," see EJ1033803.]

Jefferson believed that citizenship must exhibit republican virtue. While education was necessary in a republican polity, it alone was insufficient in sustaining a revolutionary civic spirit. This paper examines Jefferson's expectations for citizen virtue, specifically related to militia and jury service in his "little republics." Citizens required not only knowledge of history and republican principles, but also public spaces where they could personify what they learned. Jefferson often analogized the nation as a ship at sea, and while navigational instruments are necessary in charting an accurate course, i.e., republican theories, they become inconsequential without the decisive action required for their successful use.

Pursuing social justice in education raises ethical questions about teaching practice that have not been fully addressed in the social justice literature. Hytten (2015) initiated a valuable way forward in developing an ethics of social justice educators, drawing on virtue ethics. In this paper, I provide additional support to this effort by arguing that a virtue approach to ethics of teaching is in fact compatible with responsiveness to social context in teaching. I then propose a refined framework for considering the virtues of teachers, one which asks us to identify virtues relevant to teaching within the broad categories of intellectual and moral virtue. For any potential virtue of social justice educators, we should then consider (a) its characteristic psychology, (b) its relationship to the aim of social justice, and (c) both the internal and external conditions for its success. I use this framework to elaborate one particular intellectual virtue in teaching for social justice, open-mindedness.

Educating for democracy, seen within a liberal democratic framework, requires that students develop the requisite knowledge and skills to recognize injustice and work effectively to oppose it. Stitzlein's notion of dissent is examined in conjunction with Kahne and Westheimer's argument for teaching democratic capacities by actively engaging students in addressing real world problem. This paper further suggests that for active dissent to lead to real change, we must extend our notion of dissent to include the knowledge and skills to influence the balance of power. Teaching students for democracy requires teaching them theory, history, and techniques of nonviolent action so they may be aptly empowered to play a vital role in the formulation, maintenance, and alteration of the rules and policies of our society.

This response argues that it is reasonable to consider Thomas Jefferson a proponent of democratic education. It suggests that Jefferson's education proposals sought to ensure the wide distribution of knowledge and that Jefferson's legacy remains important to us today.

Walter Parker responds to Hanson and Howe's article, extending their argument to everyday classroom practice. He focuses on a popular learning activity called Structured Academic Controversy (SAC). SAC is pertinent not only to civic learning objectives but also to traditional academic-content objectives. SAC is at once a discourse structure, a participation structure, and an instructional procedure; and it centers on Hanson and Howe's autonomy-building fulcrum--exchanging reasons. At a key moment in SAC, students are invited to step out of an assigned role and to form their "own" position on the issue. Parker argues that SAC is one way to mobilize a school's assets in the direction of democratically enlightened political engagement. (Contains 3 notes.)

We cannot pretend to educate young people for citizenship and political participation without teaching them to understand and use the new media, which are essential means of expressing ideas, forming public opinions, and building institutions and movements. But the challenge of media literacy education is serious. Students need advanced and constantly changing skills to be effective online. They must understand the relationship between the new media and social and political institutions, a topic that is little understood by even the most advanced social theorists. And they must develop motivations to use digital media for civic purposes, when no major institutions have incentives to motivate them. Until we address those challenges, students will struggle to make sense of the new media environment, let alone take constructive action. [For Stoddard's "The Need for Media Education in Democratic Education," see EJ1033729.]

In this response, we argue for the importance of understanding teachers' and administrators' beliefs about civic education, as well as how those beliefs may influence teachers' practices. We commend the authors for examining the beliefs of principals and school board members--groups rarely surveyed--but question how their beliefs may affect the teaching and learning of citizenship in schools. [For "Civic Meanings: Understanding the Constellations of Democratic and Civic Beliefs of Educators," see EJ1061567.]

This essay is a reply to James Carpenter's "Thomas Jefferson and the Ideology of Democratic Schooling." In it, I argue that there is an apophatic strain in the essay that calls into question the motivation for the undertaking.

This paper discusses the role of scaffolded reading instruction in democratic education. Focusing on a case study of a high school civic unit on the Syrian civil war and refugee crisis, it argues the importance of such reading instruction. Students noted the challenges they experienced when reading complex texts on the topic. Yet, scaffolded reading activities that helped students interpret and respond to the texts yielded student engagement with disciplinary material and were praised by the students. This paper illustrates the use of such supports and discusses the ramifications of their absence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deliberative models of democratic education encourage the discussion of controversial issues in the classroom (e.g., Hess, 2009); however, they tend to curtail conflicts for the sake of consensus. Agonism, on the other hand, can help support the deliberative model by attending to antagonism in productive ways (Ruitenberg, 2009). In this paper, I present how agonistic deliberation (the infusion of agonism into deliberation) can work as an account of the political that may help empower young people. The paper presents two classic democratic classroom practices--structured academic controversy (SAC) and debate--together as examples of how agonistic deliberation can help students engage politically. This paper suggests that while deliberation can help students learn about political participation, agonistic deliberation (with its focus on conflict) has the potential to help students harness social frustrations into political action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By establishing a set of theoretical frameworks to view and compare the work of youth organizers and youth commissioners, and through personal interviews, the authors of the paper "Youth Change Agents: Comparing the Sociopolitical Identities of Youth Organizers and Youth Commissioners" presented their explanation of the development of the sociopolitical identities and civic commitments of each group. This response paper asks questions about the authors' limited use of context and complexity to explain how their youth arrived at their opinions, perspectives, and ultimately their sociopolitical identities. Their work also raises questions of how and why civic engagement and social activism took place based upon the provided evidence of actual changes that occurred. Finally, it poses methodological concerns associated specifically with relying on youth memories, years after the fact, of their tenure in these two groups and uncoupled from any interactive variables, as well as the absence of triangulated data that would further substantiate their findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deliberative democracy surfaces disagreements so that people holding conflicting stances understand each other's reasons for the purpose of decision-making. Democratic education approaches should provide students with the opportunity to learn and practice how to address conflict in the collective decision-making process. In this paper, I examine the Foxfire Course for Teachers, a professional development retreat in which teachers learn to practice democratic teaching by themselves experiencing democratic decision-making. In particular, a series of disagreements among course participants is analyzed in detail to understand the learning that resulted and the conditions that supported that learning. As a result of this experiential learning opportunity, teachers came to realize the importance of allowing students to experience and reason through disagreement although it may cause discomfort. Teachers also came to view democratic participation as a developmental process that requires practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent surveys have indicated a worryingly low level of support for democracy among Australian youth and around the world. For example, in the 2017 Lowy Institute Poll, 36% of Australians indicated that, in some circumstances, a nondemocratic government is preferable. Such concerns, while hardly new, have triggered calls for more civic education and civic involvement. Linked to these concerns are discussions about the way new media (including mobile accessibility, the internet, and social media) is reshaping our understandings of public participation in democracy, especially the way that we conceive of the public sphere. Schools are often seen as important sites for the development of civic values in democratic countries. Having the skills and knowledge to navigate the public sphere in a critical way as well as contribute to it meaningfully is an important part of any activist approach to citizenship education. This paper presents one such example of radical citizenship education, Justice Citizens, and presents a framework that fellow critical educators might use to encourage young people to contribute to the public sphere not as citizens-in-waiting but as justice-oriented citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This short paper is a response to Nel Noddings's article on schooling for democracy. Whilst agreeing with the basic premises of Noddings's argument, it questions the possibility of parity between academic and vocational tracks given the inequitable social and educational contexts the two types of learning would have to coexist within. Drawing on the educational philosophies of John Dewey and R. H. Tawney, I argue that both the United States and the United Kingdom need to create educational systems that reduce the social distance between people rather than, as the current systems do, exacerbate them. This is an issue of hearts and minds as well as policies and practices. As Dewey pointed out a hundred years ago, what is required is education that results in "mutual regard of all citizens for all other citizens," and the paper concludes that both countries are still far away from achieving this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the current political challenges facing democratic societies, including an apparent presence of populist rhetoric, the question of how political discussions should take place in democratic education is as urgent as ever. In the last two decades, one of the most prominent approaches to this question has been the use of deliberative theory. However, the deliberative approach has been criticized from an agonistic perspective for neglecting the role of emotions in political discussions. Deliberative theorists have in turn responded to this critique and argued that the agonistic approach tends to put too much emphasis on students' emotions and identities in political discussions. Recently, as a contribution to this debate, the idea of assimilating agonism with deliberation has been suggested as a way of overcoming the differences between agonism and deliberative theory. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the educational debate between agonism and deliberative theory by exploring the deliberative critique from the vantage point of agonism. I claim that the deliberative critique of agonism is unfounded and based on a misreading of Mouffe's agonistic theory. Furthermore, I argue that the attempt to assimilate agonism with deliberation is not compatible with Mouffe's agonistic theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This response considers the strengths of Carr and Thesee's 2017 paper in Democracy & Education and explores further areas of research related to education for democracy or citizenship education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response to the article by Tanner and Corrie, the authors provide three critiques of the methodology and theoretical framing of the study with the hopes of informing future scholarship and practice. Specifically, the three critiques addressed in this paper include the integration of CWS frameworks and YPAR methodology, the application and description of CWS and YPAR frameworks, and the role of power in the relationship between educator and student that served as the central medium for the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Video games are the most recent technological advancement to be viewed as an educational panacea and a force for democracy. However, this medium has particular affordances and constraints as a tool for democratic education in educational environments. This paper presents results from a study of the design and content of four iCivics games and their potential to meet the goals of democratic education. Specifically, we focus on the games as designed experiences, the nature and accuracy of the content, and the nature of intellectual engagement in the games. We find that the games, while easily accessible and aligned with standardized curriculum, do not provide opportunities to engage players in deliberative decision making on contemporary issues or to apply concepts from the game world to their role as citizens in training. Further, the game content is more "textbook" than the potentially dynamic and authentic types of civic engagement the medium of games can provide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Student teaching supervisors can play an integral role in teacher candidates' ability to understand and enact culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP). However, supervisors may lack the awareness, knowledge, skill, or willingness to serve as culturally responsive supervisors. This paper reports the findings from a qualitative study to find out how supervisors described and supported CRP. We found that supervisors hold unsophisticated views of CRP and face the following challenges enacting culturally responsive supervision: feelings of inadequacy, difficulty talking about race, color-blind orientations, and a tendency to purposefully avoid race talk. We provide recommendations for professional development to address these challenges and narrow the theory-to-practice divide in order to promote the democratic education ideals of equality and justice in our schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Goodlad, et al. (2002) rightly point out that a culture can either resist or support change. Schein's (2010) model of culture indicates observable behaviors of a culture can be explained by exposing underlying shared values and basic assumptions that give meaning to the performance. Yet culture is many-faceted and complex. So Schein advised a clinical approach to cultural analysis that calls for identifying a problem in order to focus the analysis on relevant values and assumptions. This project starts with two assumptions: (1) The erosion of democratic education is a visible overt behavior of the current U.S. macro-culture, and (2) this is a problem. I intend to use this problem of the erosion of democratic education as a basis for a cultural analysis. My essential question is: What are the deeper, collective, competing value commitments and shared basic assumptions that hinder efforts for democratic education? The purpose of this paper is to start a conversation about particular cultural limitations and barriers we are working with as we move toward recapturing the civic mission of education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]