Abstract
Civic education in the modern era must contend with contentious presidential elections, navigating post-truth news, challenges to multiculturalism and critical perspectives, and a global pandemic. These contemporary challenges compound to disproportionally hinder the civic learning among students within marginalized communities. Research studies have consistently documented a disparity between the quality and number of civics classes based on class and race (Kahne & Middaugh, 2009; Kahne, Rodriguez, Smith, & Thiede, 2000: Swalwell, 2015). The lack of investment in civic skills has contributed to what Levinson (2010) referred to as the civic empowerment gap, which exists across civic knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors within an increasingly segregated public school system.
With these concerns in mind, Toledo's (2021) Civics Education in Contentious Times: Working with Teachers to Create Locally-Specific Curricula in a Post-Truth World provides a powerful model of civic education at the elementary level. Toledo's research project focuses on developing and implementing a civic perspective-taking curriculum within an urban, Title I, predominately non-white, majority Latinx students. Working alongside three teachers during the 2016 presidential election, the study highlights the importance of teaching civic perspective-taking as an essential ability for emerging citizens. The political rhetoric of that time, regarding post-truth, alternative facts, fake news, wall building, coupled with anti-immigrant/anti-Latinx narratives served to complicate the findings. Given that perspective-taking was the primary focus of the study, Toledo and his teaching partners had to grapple with these ideas with majority Latinx students. The election led the educators to reconsider their notions of civic perspective-taking to address the palatable fear and anxiety among the students and teachers.
Toledo conceptualized civic perspective-taking focused on recognizing multiple perspectives using fact-based evidence to support opinions. These types of knowledge are pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical reasoning. With these ideas in mind, Toledo identified seven essential themes of civic perspective-taking that include (a) engaging in perspective-taking with peers, (b) considering the public good, (c) differentiating between facts and opinions, (d) differentiation between public and personal issues, (e) engaging in argumentation, (f) using evidence to support opinions, and (g) developing academic vocabulary. This emphasis focused on civic perspective-taking for elementary students that had not been widely researched prior to this study. Toledo then worked with three practicing teachers to develop a related curriculum designed to assess students’ abilities to engage in civic-perspective-taking.
Early in the study, Toledo met with grade level teachers and planed a unit for civic perspective-taking focusing on teaching students these seven themes. Data collected during the study came from three key sources: pre-and post-writing activities, written student work samples, and video footage and field notes. Meetings and observations were video and audio recorded. Toledo collected student writing samples to examine how students’ thinking about key events evolve and change over time.
A key research question of Toledo's was: “What did the ways in which teachers adapted the written curriculum suggest about the types of knowledge they were using in teaching this content” (2020, p. 68) Toledo analyzed ways in which teachers change the structure of the lessons to meet the needs of students. In one instance teachers removed text and added more visuals in order to be more sensitive to the needs of English Language Learners in a digital presentation. In one lesson about racism, teachers use an example from the popular film Zootopia. The teachers used their knowledge of student interest to make this adaptation. While the movie was chosen in part because it was popular among students, the teachers used it to extend lessons through real life examples. Particularly, the movie was a useful catalyst to discuss bullying and hate speech which were on the rise nationally.
Data analysis of the study was organized along tiers with examples for student's abilities on the essential themes of civic perspective-taking. The four tiers range from students not being able to determine facts from opinions to higher tier students who could identify issues that stem from the use of untrue statements. An example of a Tier 1 student claimed, “This card is a fact because I think, it's true.” (p. 85) However, a Tier 4 student claimed during a group section of a lesson, “That is really bad if people use those (those references untrue statements) and says they are facts, it could confuse people and then they don't know what to think” (p. 85). The tiers provided context into how some students were able to engage more complexly with concepts and considered equity and justice relative to their peers.
The salient political issues that were unfolding at the time of the study had dramatic influences on the findings. The classroom contained a majority Latinx students, and many had family members who were undocumented. The students were especially worried after one girls father was deported. This event was traumatizing. Students referenced Trump sixty times during the unit. A high percentage of the comments were negative and centered around students’ anxieties and fears related to immigration and deportation. Students also started referencing fake news and alternative facts. This indicates the way that the political climate was shaping these students’ beliefs. One student asked, “If Donald Trump doesn't like our school, is he going to knock it down?” (p. 96) At the same time, teachers noticed more bullying, when a student asked, “When they see the President saying certain things, or acting a certain way, it becomes okay for them too” (p. 96). In the wake of these events, the classroom became an essential space for these students to voice their concerns, learn about the world, and have discussions over issues relevant to them.
The complications between facts and opinions became a key emergent finding of the study. As a result, Toledo reevaluated his prior definition of civic perspective-taking. Initially civic perspective-taking was defined as the ability to identify the possible stances, or points of view that one may reasonably take on the issue and the develop an opinion on the issue grounded in reasons or evidence. However, the study demonstrated the need for a more nuanced conceptualization. Toledo instead shifted towards an understanding of civic perspective-taking where individuals must develop opinions on issues that are grounded in evidence and consider the public good as they make decisions. This change has potential to inspire and provide practice for considering future issues. However, there are limitations including state mandated testing and curriculum, the teachers background knowledge, and further marginalization of social studies instruction at the elementary level (Heafner & Fitchett, 2012). With these limitations in mind, Toledo provides ample examples of powerful civic learning among the students.
The students in the book consistently provide an honesty, humility, and genuineness towards the lessons that would be inspiring for any educator. For example, a student noted, “I think that when we think of each other the world just becomes better. It is like kindness and thinking of another person's shoes.” The teachers involved in the project also felt a sense that students became kinder, more positive, and closer to one another. Such a positive change was attributed these improvements to development in empathy and community among the students. Another positive example was when the students voted on a class project. The students choose to create a buddy bench where students can go if they feel lonely or are looking for someone to play with. The buddy bench was a clear success. When a student would sit on there, others would quickly arrive to visit with, or include into their play, the student sitting on the bench. In sum, the evidence that the students and classroom atmosphere benefited from the curriculum in ways that will have beneficial implications beyond the school year.
Since the conclusion of this study, the findings and key issues explored have become even more salient. Given the degree of political polarization, a renewed emphasis on civic perspective taking outlined by Toledo could help young learners gain beneficial experiences. However, over the past few years there has been a large-scale movement to restrict education that addresses racism and bias within U.S. History. At the time of writing this review, 36 states have made efforts to restrict such education, while 17 states have made efforts at expanding education to address racism and bias. At the elementary level, children's’ books that address racism, sexism, LBGTQ + identities, colonization, and the holocaust have been targeted for the removal from classrooms. This discrepancy further highlights the degree of political polarization within United States society, which will likely make a concerted effort to focus on civic perspective-taking more difficult. These issues create difficulties for teachers interested in civic perspective-taking. Even still, an important take away of the book is that young learners are certainly capable of navigating various perspectives, weighing fact and opinion, and learning from each other to form thoughtful opinions. This book is appropriate for both researchers and social studies teachers who are interested in tangible examples and ideas for civic education at the elementary level. Particularly, I hope that elementary teachers and administrators take the ideas in this book and implement them with their students.