Orienting all students toward justice: Cultivating social responsibility in privileged schooling environments

Abstract

What is the obligation of schools in fostering compassion for others and a commitment to the greater good? In a year-long qualitative study, this research explores how one Northeastern private schooling environment aimed to cultivate social responsibility in adolescents through an egalitarian, discussion-oriented pedagogy. Guided by Westheimer and Kahne’s three-tiered conceptualization of citizenship, we explore what can be learned from one school’s emphasis on student-led discussions and how this approach influenced students’ commitments to others. We ultimately argue that students developed a profound sense of obligation to one another (e.g. to other youth of privilege), but fell short of extending this commitment to others beyond their elite institution. These findings raise questions about the role of privileged schooling environments in fostering beyond-the-self, justice-oriented citizens for the benefit of our democracy and questions, too, about the pedagogies leveraged to achieve such goals.

Keywords

beyond-the-self classroom discussion democratic citizenship privilege social justice social responsibility

Citizenship has been a foundational goal of schooling in America since its origins (e.g. Campbell, 2012; Dewey, 1916/1966, 1938; Johanek, 2012; McClellan, 1999; Seider, 2012). In the current sociopolitical climate of a global pandemic (New York Times, 2022a), devastating climate change (Plumer et al., 2022; Zhong, 2022), ongoing systemic racism (e.g. Blow, 2015; Zraik, 2021), the outbreak of war in the opening months of 2022 (Yeung et al., 2022), mass shootings (New York Times, 2022b), and the overturning of Roe v. Wade (Tumin, 2022), it seems more crucial than ever for students to be prepared to be responsible and active citizens in our ever-changing world (e.g. Flanagan, 2013; Kirshner, 2015; Levinson, 2012; Mehta and Fine, 2019; Swalwell and Spikes, 2021; Westheimer, 2015). However, many skeptics oppose the connection between coursework and social justice and question the role of schooling in cultivating a sense of student social responsibility (e.g. Sawchuck, 2021). What is the obligation of schools in fostering a commitment to the greater good? Not in indoctrinating students, as critics accuse, but in truly fostering a sense of social responsibility to the greater good – responsibility beyond oneself, beyond one’s inner circle, and oriented toward justice. How does social responsibility impact our democracy and how might schools approach this work?

Through a year-long, qualitative study of high school students attending Thistle Academy (a pseudonym), an elite private high school in the northeastern United States, the present study sought to answer the question of how youth – particularly youth attending privileged institutions – might come to develop social responsibility, and the role of their school in fostering this stance.¹

Thistle was founded with a mission to foster students’ academic excellence and strong moral character, and with a firm belief that these two goals are interdependent. As a primary way of achieving this mission, every class is run using a student-led, discussion-based approach. This specific pedagogy is premised on an egalitarian philosophy of students and teachers working as collaborators and actively engaging in the co-construction of meaning in the classroom. Given this democratic approach, coupled with the school’s explicit commitment to morality and to placing others’ well-being before one’s own, we sought to investigate the ways in which this school fostered students’ social responsibility, and how the students and teachers conceptualized this development. More specifically, we sought to answer the following research question: How do the youth attending Thistle Academy describe and understand their own growth in social responsibility, and how do faculty describe and understand this same development?

We ultimately argue that this school’s approach has great promise for fostering a foundation of youth social responsibility, but also that it can fall short of the critical pedagogies (e.g. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008; Freire, 1970/2000; Seider and Graves, 2020; Watts and Flanagan, 2007) needed to foster commitments beyond the walls of the institution itself. We posit that students at this institution built a strong toolbox of some of the skills necessary for engaging as citizens in a democratic society, but that since these skills were also not oriented toward justice, they represent a missed opportunity for the development of a broader social responsibility to the greater good.

Acting for the greater good: Social responsibility, citizenship, and purpose

Wray-Lake et al. (2016) define social responsibility as ‘a set of values or personal commitments to improve one’s community and society’ (p. 130) and can be understood as one’s perceived level of interdependence and concern for one’s community members and broader society (Morais and Ogden, 2011; Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). Social responsibility is comprised of both cognitive and affective components; cognitive components include perspective taking (Hoffman, 2000) and cognitive flexibility (Astuto and Ruck, 2010; Eisenberg, 2000; Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011); affective components include emotion regulation (Hart et al., 2003; Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011) and empathy itself (Hoffman, 2000; Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011). It is considered to be a critical component of relationships, care, and justice (Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011) and is associated with a number of positive outcomes including youth empowerment (e.g. Wagaman, 2011; Youniss and Yates, 1997), future civic action (Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011), and academic achievement (Oberle et al., 2014; Wentzel, 2013).

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) put forth a framework that parses citizenship into three categories that is instructive in understanding the different ways that social responsibility can manifest. These scholars posit that there are three tiers of citizens: personally-responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented. A personally responsible citizen acts responsibly in their community, a participatory citizen actively organizes ways to make their community better, and a justice-oriented citizen critically analyzes social and political forces and addresses injustice through collective strategies (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). Put another way, a personally responsible citizen might contribute to a food drive, a participatory citizen might organize a food drive, and a justice-oriented citizen might actually think critically about the inequity witnessed, investigate root causes of hunger, and work to alleviate the problem (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). We ultimately use this three-tiered framework as a way to evaluate participating students’ social responsibility commitments.

Importantly, becoming a socially responsible, justice-oriented citizen can be contrasted with current work on beyond-the-self purpose (Malin, 2018). Although similar concepts, beyond-the-self purpose includes a ‘higher-order and meaningful goal, motivation stemming from a desire to contribute to the world beyond the self, and goal-directed activity’ (Malin, 2018: 42). While a purposeful goal may be important and meaningful to the individual and be oriented beyond the self, it does not necessarily have to be focused on issues of justice or equity. Rather, such goals align more clearly with Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) personally responsible and participatory citizens.

The concepts of social responsibility, justice-oriented citizenship, and beyond-the-self purpose are all directly connected to a larger question of the broader purpose of schooling in a democracy (e.g. Kahne and Westheimer, 2003; Westheimer, 2015). Thus, when we pose the question, ‘What is the obligation of schools in fostering a sense of social responsibility to the greater good?’, we situate this question within the broader context of our democratic society and define ‘social responsibility to the greater good’ as not only thinking about others beyond oneself and beyond one’s inner circle, but specifically doing so with a justice orientation.

Fostering social responsibility

The work of Wray-Lake and Syvertsen (2011) specifically connects dialogic practices to social responsibility and puts forth three primary ways to support its development in students: modeling, messaging and practicing. That is, social responsibility seems to be cultivated when teachers model democratic practices such as dialog and debate, when educators explicitly communicate messages about compassion and the needs of others, and when schools provide opportunities for students to actually practice social responsibility and social engagement. As such, Thistle Academy, with its belief in moral development as a central tenet, along with its egalitarian, discussion-based approach to teaching, seemed to be a prime environment to study some of the specific ways in which social responsibility could thrive (see also Althof and Berkowitz, 2006; Campbell, 2008; CIRCLE, 2021).

Wray-Lake et al. (2016) found an overall downward trend in students’ social responsibility development between the ages of 9 and 16 (contributing to a body of literature that has seen a similar trend of declining social responsibility in middle adolescence; e.g. Flanagan and Stout, 2010; Nucci and Turiel, 2009; Smetana et al., 2009), but also found that outside factors, which they refer to as ‘ecological assets’, such as trusted friendships, school solidarity, and community connectedness, play an integral role in promoting youth social responsibility development. These elements, too, are directly aligned with the core tenets of Thistle Academy’s approach, supporting our rationale for studying social responsibility development at this particular school.

Importantly, critical education theorists have also championed the imperatives of critical discussion (i.e. dialog and analysis of oppression and social inequities) and critical action (responses to these injustices). Freire (1970/2000), working from a critical pedagogy framework, has argued that individuals should engage in dialogic discussion in order to develop critical consciousness – the ways in which people come not only to understand, but also to challenge oppressive social forces. Freire (1970/2000) posited that students need to engage in discussion and action (what he referred to as ‘praxis’) in order to understand their worlds. In a similar vein, Shor (1992) viewed educational dialog as a way to foster not just critical thinking, but also democratic participation. He theorized that dialog could be thought of as a way of bringing people together and preparing them for reflective action (Shor, 1992).

Watts and Flanagan (2007) put forth a theoretical model that builds on these pedagogical practices (e.g. deliberative discussions) and critical theorists (e.g. Freire and Shor) which helps to elucidate some of the ways that social responsibility might be fostered specifically within a justice orientation (e.g. aligned Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) conceptualization of a justice-oriented citizen). Grounded in a liberatory education framework and closely associated with critical consciousness development (see Freire, 1970/2000; Seider and Graves, 2020; Seider et al., 2019; Watts and Flanagan, 2007; Watts et al., 2003), Watts and Flanagan’s (2007) model outlines the necessary building blocks for sociopolitical development, which can be defined as ‘the process by which individuals acquire the knowledge, analytical skills, emotional faculties, and the capacity for action in political and social systems necessary to interpret and resist oppression’ (Watts et al., 2003). In other words, sociopolitical development is specifically focused on understanding and challenging systemic oppression and is directly aligned with the justice-orientation of social responsibility outlined above.

Watts and Flanagan (2007) posited that in order to foster the commitments and behaviors of societal involvement, youth must first be able to understand and to analyze the world and inequality – a skill and mindset they refer to as ‘worldview and social analysis’ (p. 784). Youth must also have a sense of agency – a belief in their ability to make a difference – as well as what they refer to as ‘opportunity structures’ (p. 784). These opportunity structures are systems in place to give students actual and specific situations where they can practice affecting change. What is perhaps most important about this model, especially in the context of the other literature on discussion outlined earlier in this section, is that discussion in this case must specifically be in service of analyzing inequality. That is, critical thinking and analysis is not enough in and of itself, but rather must be used in order to better understand oppressive forces in the world. In addition, even this kind of analysis of oppression is not sufficient; youth must feel empowered to act, and they must have been given actual opportunities to practice challenging injustice.

This is aligned with Westheimer’s (2015) work which argues that regardless of one’s democratic priorities or political leanings, educating in a democratic society requires specific pedagogies (that are distinct, say, from those in a totalitarian regime) including teaching students to ‘think critically, ask questions, evaluate policy, and work with others toward change that moves democracy forward’ (p. 99). This conceptualization of educating for democracy pushes beyond the importance of dialog and debate alone, and toward the importance of critical thinking in order to analyze injustices and in order to take action in the face of those injustices (e.g. Freire, 1970/2000; Shor, 1992; Watts and Flanagan, 2007) as noted above. Westheimer’s (2015) points here also help to distinguish between democratic practices (e.g. egalitarian pedagogies) and democratic engagement (e.g. actively participating in a democratic society): a school’s pedagogies can be largely democratic (e.g. student led and run) without necessarily fostering democratic principles or engagement in society.

Fostering social responsibility with youth in privileged environments

It is important to point out that Watts and Flanagan’s (2007) model described above is presented within a liberatory education framework and is specifically not a framework that was designed for White, privileged students, given its purpose of understanding and disrupting oppressive forces in one’s life. Scholars have even reported on a pointed resistance of privileged youth to acknowledging privilege, inequality, or their own role in affecting change (e.g. Applebaum, 2006; Curry-Stevens, 2007; Seider, 2008), further reinforcing the importance of this work. However, scholars of sociopolitical development have argued that broadening the scope of such models may be important from the perspective of developing allies in the fight for justice (Diemer et al., 2016; Watts et al., 2003). For example, Watts et al. (2003) have noted that ‘any hope for the formation of alliances across the divide of oppression requires that the beneficiaries of privilege first critically analyze their status and attend to their own SPD [sociopolitical development]’ (p. 193). Diemer et al. (2016) have noted that while privileged youth may not be able to analyze and take action against their own oppression, they may be able to do so to better understand and respond to the oppression of others and also to recognize how ‘their own privilege is maintained through others’ oppression’ (p. 219).

Nonetheless, studies have reported conflicting results when investigating privileged youth’s sense of obligation to others who may not have the same advantages as themselves. Some scholars have found that many privileged adolescents harbor little or no sense of social responsibility or obligation to help others who are less privileged. For example, in a mixed methods study investigating the impact of a social justice curriculum on the attitudes of privileged high school seniors in a suburban community (all of whom were White, and all of whom identified as middle, upper-middle, or upper class), Seider (2008) found that the majority of the participating students asserted that people should not have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves. Seider’s study posited a number of reasons why this may be the case (reasons ranging from an overarching belief in capitalism to a belief that their sense of obligation was limited to close friends and family) and expressed concern that if these and other seniors enter college with a sense of responsibility only for their family and friends, then important issues of social justice may not have the widespread support necessary to affect change.

Swalwell (2015), in her work exploring the development of a sense of social responsibility for privileged youth, advocated for an ‘activist ally’ approach grounded in empathic listening, affective motivations, political compassion, and emancipatory social science. Her approach to creating these elite activist allies is comprised of three primary components. The first is seeing others, which encompasses empathic witnessing (Zembylas, 2006) and humble encounters (O’Connell, 2009) with others who will challenge their perceptions (Swalwell, 2015). Swalwell (2015) specifically noted that in order to avoid perpetuating the elite status-quo, students must be asked to reflect upon injustices and to ‘be mindful of the ways in which they may appropriate their civic education in order to preserve their elite status’ (p. 503). The second is interpreting, which creates space for students to reflect on how these encounters make them feel and where those feelings come from (Swalwell, 2015). Swalwell (2015) emphasized the importance of allowing students not only to interpret these new understandings intellectually, but emotionally as well. The third step is acting, which involves creating opportunities for students to plan to respond. This emphasis on acting is aligned with other relevant scholarship – including Watts and Flanagan’s (2007) model described above – that highlights the importance of giving students opportunities to practice taking action and feeling empowered to do so in the future (see also Seider and Graves, 2020; Watts and Flanagan, 2007; Yates and Youniss, 2010). Similarly, Curry-Stevens (2007) created a 10-step process for privileged youth (grounded in similar principles of awareness, analysis, and action) that guides students in a ‘confidence-shaking process’ to first recognize the ways in which oppression exists and how they are complicit, followed by a ‘confidence-building process’ that empowers them to see how they can take action (p. 51).

With each of these critical frameworks described above, taking action (which can take many forms) can serve as a political stance regarding how one sees the world. This raises the question of the extent to which action projects should engage with politics, and the question of how schools – specifically privileged schooling environments – perceive their overarching purpose as institutions. What kinds of citizens are they seeking to put into the world and what is their own vision of the democracy they would like to uphold? What do their pedagogical approaches say about their democratic and political principles? And what is their obligation in fostering compassion for others and a commitment to the greater good?

The present study

Thistle Academy was founded with a belief that academic excellence and moral fortitude are inextricably linked. Its mission champions the importance of attending to others before thinking of oneself, and the school’s pedagogical approach is deeply rooted in this tradition. Their egalitarian, discussion-based approach is predicated on students genuinely listening to each other, building upon each other’s points, asking questions of each other, problem-solving together, and looking out for one another. As illustrated below, a sense of morality and obligation to each other is woven into the fabric of not only the mission, but also every classroom. Given this foundation, we saw this school as a prime institution to investigate the specific ways in which social responsibility was cultivated.

Method

The present study draws upon data from a larger mixed-methods study investigating the development of adolescents’ character development at Thistle Academy that took place over the course of one academic school year. The present article focuses on the qualitative methodology and findings related specifically to social responsibility.

Participants

Thistle is a Northeastern private high school in the United States that enrolls approximately 1100 students. At the school, 58% of students identify as White, 23% as Asian, 9% as Black, 8% as Hispanic, and 8% as ‘unknown’ (Thistle Academy Website, n.d., Student Demographics).

Field observations

Both authors conducted nine visits to Thistle Academy, observing a total of 52 classes across the four grade levels and across all content areas. During these observations, we collected comprehensive field notes dedicated to identifying the essential tenets of the classroom’s pedagogical approaches and their potential impact on students’ development of social responsibility.

Faculty and student interviews

We conducted 45-minute in-person interviews with eight faculty members and 30-minute in-person interviews with 15 students at Thistle. Participants were randomly selected and a semi-structured interview protocol (Seidman, 1991) with open-ended questions was used as a guide for the interviews in order to allow our research team to remain open to the interviewee’s narratives. Some examples of queries included, To what extent does the way that your classes are structured impact students’/your willingness to speak up in class and out of class? Does it impact how students/you feel heard in class and out? and, Do students have opportunities to impact the broader community outside of Thistle? If so, do classes and classroom structure play a role?

Data analysis

All interviews with students and faculty were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. We primarily drew on Braun and Clarke’s (2013) Thematic Analysis approach to coding interviews and field notes, as it allowed us the flexibility to both deductively (etic) and inductively (emic) code our interviews and field notes (see also Maxwell, 2013). All interviews and field notes were double-coded by both researchers and any disagreements were resolved through discussion.

First, we created a qualitative codebook of larger ‘etic’ themes drawn from the scholarship on social responsibility such as ‘empathy’ as well as other associated terminology such as ‘student voice’. Second, drawing on elements of ‘open coding’ from Glaser and Strauss’s Grounded Theory approach (Braun and Clarke, 2013; Charmaz, 2006), we then recoded the data, keeping in mind areas of the data that did not ascribe to our larger etic codes. When possible, we applied ‘in-vivo’ codes (Charmaz, 2006) that allowed themes to come from the voices of students and teachers themselves (e.g. ‘obligation’).

Third, we grouped both these etic and emic themes into conceptually clustered matrices grouped separately by teachers and students (Maxwell, 2013). These matrices included each identified etic and emic theme as a column heading and row heading. All relevant data were then placed into any pertinent categories, and additional headings were added when necessary. These matrices allowed us to identify patterns throughout our themes as well as differences and similarities between teachers and students related to our overarching research questions.

Fourth, based on the conceptually clustered matrices, we were able to identify large patterns within our data (e.g. Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) three kinds of citizenship). We then took these larger themes and coded each for possible sub-themes. Based on this process, we identified our final themes for each area of citizenship within our conceptualization of social responsibility.

Findings

Our analysis revealed a trend related to Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) conception of three kinds of citizens: personally responsible, participatory, and justice-oriented, with results heavily skewed toward the development of personally responsible citizenship. That is, we saw many examples of personal responsibility in which students spoke of the ways in which they supported and cared for others in their classes and at their school; but there were very few examples of students demonstrating a sense of obligation to those beyond their school walls or exhibiting a justice-orientation.

We illustrate this trend below using examples from student and teacher interviews and classroom observations. We then conclude by discussing the implications of these findings – that are narrowly focused on personal responsibility – for students, teachers, schools, and our broader democracy.

Personally responsible citizens

Recall that Westheimer and Kahne (2004) identify personally responsible citizens as those who act responsibly in their community. Below we describe three different ways in which the pedagogy at Thistle contributed to this kind of citizenship.

Personally responsible citizens: Obligation to the group

First, students spoke about an ‘obligation’ to contribute to the classroom discussion and an obligation to the people at the table. For example, Albert (all names are pseudonyms), a senior, noted, ‘You kind of you feel like you’re obliged to like contribute, and you want to contribute in order to make the class better’. Albert did not say that he felt that he must participate for his own knowledge or his own grade, but rather to ‘make the class better’. He also reflected, ‘It’s like a good pressure where people feel like they have this obligation or commitment to your fellow peers’. Daniel, a sophomore, used similar language stating, ‘I almost feel like I have a moral obligation to try my best because I want to bring my best to the table and to help other people’. Again, his motivation to talk in class seems to stem from a purpose beyond himself (a ‘moral obligation’) and that he wants to be able to ‘help other people’ through his participation.

Hope, a junior, made a similar comment, noting that the way that classes were discussion-based helped her learn how to better support her peers: ‘It’s a lot of, like, building off of other people’s points. The main part of what happens in the conversation is somebody makes a point, and then other people add on and provide examples. Like when you see someone who clearly has an idea, it has improved my ability to support them’.

Our field notes align with interview data in that we observed a theme of student obligation to the group, often in order to solve a problem or to find meaning. There are long stretches of field notes where only the students are speaking, and the onus is on the students to figure things out on their own. Nikki, a freshman, commented on this phenomenon in her interview, reflecting,

If someone has a question, it’s really up to the students to answer. The teacher just backs off, so you want to help more. It’s your opportunity to speak; it’s not where the teacher takes over. Like in math if someone has a question, they ask the table, and anyone who understands will answer for them. We’ll problem solve and try to figure it out and it’s a nice moment when you work on something forever, and everyone’s working on it, and you finally get it.

There is a sense of responsibility to each other to move the discussion forward to work together to find a solution as a team. Similarly, in the majority of the math classes we observed, students were responsible for completing assigned problems, and then explaining their work to each other at the beginning of each class. Denise, a senior, explained, ‘We have our math problems that we do for homework, and then we present them to each other and it’s pretty much just all student based. And people will be like, oh I did it this way and it worked out this way, and then I didn’t know how to get it from here’. Through this egalitarian, discussion-based approach, students work together as a team as a way of lending support to classroom discussions and demonstrating a sense of care and responsibility to the class.

Personally responsible citizens: Speak up for others

Students also spoke of the ways in which classroom discussions emboldened them to speak up for others. Terry, a sophomore, gave an example of what this looked like for him:

Last term there was this one student - I could tell that she was doing the reading because I could see her book and she made really good notes and she was annotating a lot but she just didn’t have her voice yet I guess, and she wasn’t participating at all. I just wanted to help her get her participation grade, but also I thought she could help benefit and contribute to the class. So at times when it’s my turn to talk or at times when I’ve got everyone’s attention, I would say, hey do you - I noticed that you were thinking something, or you were going to say something, is there anything you want to say? And just things like using my voice to help others to find theirs definitely helped with my empathy and, like, being an advocate for those who don’t really have their voice yet.

Even though a sizable portion of Terry’s grade is predicated on his contribution to the classroom discussion, he went out of his way to make sure that his classmates had the chance to participate too. Ada, a freshman, made a similar comment: ‘That’s definitely developed here I think - being aware of not silencing other views and allowing more quiet people to get into discussions. I think that’s definitely helped with my ability to speak up for groups’.

The field notes from our observational data corroborated this theme of advocating for and making space for others. There were numerous examples of two students speaking at once, and one of them always quickly stepping back to yield the floor to the other one. Even though these are small examples, they were notable in that we saw virtually no examples of students steamrolling classmates in trying to make their point. The students were engaged and impassioned, but they also made sure to make space for their classmates’ voices. Below is one (of many) excerpts:

Student 12 and Student 8 talk at the same time.

Student 12:

You go

Student 8:

Well, it said that men are more likely to report. . . was that your-?

Student 12:

Yeah in the Times article it said men are more likely . . .

It is important to point out that the commonality across each of these examples is that the advocacy for others remains squarely within the confines of the classroom.

Personally responsible citizens: Empathy development

Students also spoke about the positive impact that participating in discussions at Thistle has on their own sense of caring and empathy. For example, Terry commented,

I think the biggest area in which I’ve grown outside of, like, anything academic, has definitely been empathy and understanding people and really caring about other people’s opinions and their feelings. [Thistle] definitely has helped me try to understand where this person’s coming from and trying to get to know different people to understand why they’re saying what they’re saying instead of just taking their words as who they are and just judging a person based off of that.

Monica spoke similarly about the ways in which participating in discussions in classes at Thistle helped her to develop skills to read other students’ body language and to be more attuned to others:

Just reading someone’s body language, like knowing when to kind of take a step back and try to listen to other people or also recognize when you yourself want to step in with a counter-argument or something to keep things interesting. I think I’ve become such a much more attuned student – but also person – to my surroundings. And even within my friendship groups I’ve become more aware of other people and how I fit within that dynamic.

The ubiquity of this democratic, dialogic approach at Thistle Academy allowed students to constantly practice the skills of perspective-taking, reading others’ body language and caring about others.

Participatory citizens

In our data we saw only two instances of students’ development as participatory citizens (those who actively organize ways to make their community better) related to student involvement in a feminist club. First, Maria, a History teacher, spoke about how some students, in response to a sexual assault at a peer institution, worked to put together a panel on creating a safe culture at their school:

The feminist club decided they wanted to have a panel about Thistle sexual culture. They wanted to talk about this, and they really planned the whole thing. So students feeling like, this is something important to me, and I’m gonna speak out on it, and create a club that speaks to this issue, and hold the panel that speaks to this issue – I think is very much coming out of this idea that student voices matter, and that one’s voice and one’s advocacy can make a difference.

Another teacher, Daniela, spoke about this club as well and the ways in which the students leveraged their classroom skills to affect change. She commented,

It’s a beautiful thing. This is student run, student driven. They will bring certain topics to the floor that they think they ought to discuss in light of current events. They’ve been talking a lot about sexual culture here at Thistle, and they did it. They did it by themselves. And some kids changed other kids’ minds. They listened to each other, they heard each other, and it was astonishing.

Importantly, we see in these recollections some critical thinking that verges on justice-oriented citizenship but that also stops short of a deep analysis of systemic inequality. Nonetheless, though these examples were not common in our data, they are powerful descriptions of students responding to an essential need in their community and taking important action.

Justice-oriented citizens: Speaking up against injustice

A single student in our sample exhibited characteristics of a justice-oriented citizen (one who critically analyzes social forces and addresses injustice through collective strategies) when she spoke about the impact of Thistle’s approach on her sense of agency in speaking up against injustice. Denise, a senior, described an instance in which she got into a debate with an acquaintance on the topic of feminism and defended a girl who was being made fun of. She said,

This past summer I was with my friend from home and her family. Another person in the family met this ultra-hyper feminist person who like shaved her head and didn’t shave her arm pits and he was making fun of her and then the cousin joined in. So I was like, “Hey guys, can you like not- like not talk about this right now? It’s just- it’s just a little rude”. And they were like, “Oh yeah. Fine”. And then the cousin, the 25-year-old, was just like, “Oh are you a feminist or something?” And I was like, “Are you not?” And then we just got into a debate about like about what feminist means. Cause he was just like, “No I’m not. Like I just don’t”. And I was like, “What do you mean you don’t? It just means equality between the sexes, the genders and everything. That’s just what it means. Believing in that”. And he was just like, “I disagree”. And I was like, “With what?!” It went on and it got deeper and everything, but that’s, like, the gist of it. And I would have never had the courage to stand up for myself and like what I believe in. I would never have had the courage to stand up for myself and what I believe in and, like, start teaching other people about what happens in the world and everything and why feminism is needed and everything. I would have never ever done that my freshman year.

Although several students spoke about the ways in which they had learned to speak up for others during a classroom discussion, Denise was unique in speaking to how she was bringing this knowledge outside of the school.

Justice-oriented citizens: A need for additional outlets

Teachers (though not the students themselves) remarked on a need for additional outlets for students beyond the classroom walls. One teacher Lucy commented,

I think in some ways they get frustrated that there aren’t as many vehicles for their voice outside of the classroom. They have so much voice in their academic life and then how do they express how they’re interacting with the world? Even structurally as a school we’re not great at figuring out how to have voice outside of the classroom and I think sometimes I think the kids get frustrated by that, because they’ve been empowered in their academic worlds to have voice.

Martin echoed this sentiment, advocating for students to participate in projects geared toward benefiting the community. He stated,

I would love to see our curriculum kind of shift towards more of a place-based, problem-based curriculum. Senior year our kids are adept enough where I’d like to see them look at our Thistle school community and our Thistle town community and look at interdisciplinary approaches to specific problems.

These teachers’ comments highlight the great potential for expanding students’ moral commitments beyond the school walls to more holistically and critically embody the school’s commitment to putting another’s needs before one’s own.

Limitations

It is important to note some of this study’s limitations. First, our participants represent a very particular set of students. Even though this speaks to one of the primary points of our paper, it also points to its narrow generalizability; our results specifically address the voices of adolescents attending an elite private school in the Northeastern United States. A second limitation is our small sample size. We aimed to address this limitation by immersing ourselves in the school over the course of the year and triangulating our data by observing over 50 classrooms and interviewing both students and faculty. Finally, a notable restraint of our data is that observations were limited to the classroom and did not involve explorations of extra-curriculars such as service-learning (there does exist a service organization on campus that offers multiple opportunities to become involved in the broader community). While certainly our restrained focus presents an overarching limitation, it also speaks to the apparent separation between class discussions and any kind of service or engagement beyond Thistle itself. While we observed a wide variety of classes beyond traditional academics (e.g. choir, set-design) and while we explicitly asked about opportunities to connect with and serve the community in our interviews, we never heard about such activities mentioned in our observations, and the service organization was only mentioned peripherally in our interviews (e.g. acknowledging its existence). As we detail further in the discussion, this also highlights the challenges that teachers face when working to cultivate students’ commitment to the greater good – and to effecting attitudinal changes more broadly – within the confines of the classroom walls. Despite these limitations, we feel our findings can be instructive for educators committed to social justice who are working in privileged settings.

Discussion

The teacher and student perspectives above illustrate both the benefits and the missed opportunities for fostering socially responsible citizens through classroom discussion. On the one hand, our data reflect the many ways in which Thistle Academy’s approach is aligned with the extant literature on fostering social responsibility (e.g. Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011; Wray-Lake et al., 2016). We saw teachers modeling democratic processes such as debate and dialog (Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011), multiple examples of classroom connectedness and trust (Wray-Lake et al., 2016), and daily opportunities to practice an ethic of care and responsibility to one another (Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011). Instead of promoting rote memorization, compliance, or narrow tests-taking skills, Thistle Academy cultivated students who were able to think critically, ask questions, and explore multiple perspectives – all skills specifically identified by Westheimer (2015) as necessary building blocks for the development of active, justice-oriented citizens.

However, the data also demonstrate a missed opportunity for students at Thistle Academy to have their beyond-the-self commitments pushed toward more socially responsible, justice-oriented forms of citizenship. While students exhibited many tenets of personally responsible citizenship (Westheimer and Kahne, 2004) through their clear obligation to classmates, willingness to speak up for others in class, and perceived empathy development, we saw only two instances of participatory citizenship and just one example of justice-oriented citizenship. While there certainly must have been other examples of these kinds of behavior at the school, we did not witness it in any of our classroom observations or hear about it more than peripherally in our student and teacher interviews.

Developmental theories of social responsibility emphasize the importance of building a foundation of empathic care and concern for one’s own surroundings (Learning for Justice, 2021; Wray-Lake and Syvertsen, 2011; Wray-Lake et al., 2016), suggesting that the youth in our study had developed a solid first layer of social responsibility that could develop further over time. However, the inward focus in the elite environment of Thistle Academy may also result in privileged youth empathizing with other privileged youth and thereby perpetuating, rather than challenging, current systems of power. These findings are aligned with Westheimer’s (2015) words of caution that personally responsible citizens, while perhaps kind and law-abiding, are not enough to move democracy forward, and indeed can unintentionally uphold unjust systems. This has implications for students (who may not develop the skills to seek out or to recognize inequality), for teachers and schools (who may focus their efforts on compliance, overlooking the need for justice-oriented pedagogies) and, as we detail below, for democracy itself.

First, these findings speak to the limitations of individual-focused character education (e.g. Clark et al., 2020; Rose, 2013; Soutter et al., 2022) as well as the dangers of this approach for democratic goals (e.g. Jerome and Kisby, 2019, 2022; Kirshner, 2015; Westheimer, 2015). While an emphasis on individual character strengths (e.g. kindness, empathy) can be beneficial to students in some capacity (on the surface, a community of kind, empathetic students is difficult to argue against), a narrow focus on personal traits can be insufficient and even harmful because it can overlook cycles of systematic oppression (e.g. Jerome and Kisby, 2019; Kaler-Jones, 2020; Kirshner, 2015; Rose, 2013; Simmons, 2019, 2021; Soutter, 2019). Jerome and Kisby (2019) posit that shifting the focus away from individual character development and toward citizenship education has the potential to prepare students for democratic participation, contextualized understanding of policies, and collective action. Relatedly, Althof and Berkowitz (2006) have argued that in order to cultivate moral citizens in democratic societies, schools must focus on both individual moral character and skills and dispositions for citizenship. While Thistle Academy was committed to moral and intellectual development, it did not have a specific focus on the broader community with a justice orientation; with this kind of stance, insular and privileged communities may continue to look out only for one another.

Second, the apparent lack of overlap between service learning and classroom discussions in our data speaks to several limitations of each approach. The first is the limitation of service more broadly: while helpful in many situations, volunteerism is typically considered to be a form of personally responsible or participatory citizenship since this kind of work does not necessarily seek to understand or challenge the root causes and needs for the service itself (e.g. Kahne and Westheimer, 2003; Westheimer, 2015). Even when well-intentioned, volunteerism can still be rooted in paternalistic ideals and can work to further separate and ‘other’ those being served (e.g. Doerr, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2012). Furthermore, this separation between classroom discussion and service highlights the limitations of what teachers can do without more place-based, action-oriented pedagogies. Thistle faculty did report some discussions influencing actions outside the classroom (as evidenced by the two participatory citizenship examples), suggesting that the skills gained in class can transfer beyond academic debate; nonetheless, these instances did not entail evaluations of systemic inequality or concern for others beyond the Thistle community. Thistle students’ critical thinking and perspective-taking skills remained largely confined to academic debate.

Critical pedagogies

We see critical pedagogies (e.g. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008; El-Amin et al., 2017; Freire, 1970/2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris and Alim, 2017; Seider and Graves, 2020; Watts and Flanagan, 2007) as one avenue for developing social responsibility with a justice orientation. For example, as noted in the literature review, Watts and Flanagan (2007) have argued that in order for youth to understand and challenge systemic oppression, they must be able to understand and analyze inequality (aligned with Swalwell’s (2015) tenets of seeing and interpreting); have a sense of agency (a belief in their ability to make a difference); and be presented with opportunities to practice affecting change (aligned with Swalwell’s (2015) emphasis on student action).

An initial way that this framework can be leveraged to foster a more justice-oriented sense of social responsibility would be to infuse the discussions we observed at Thistle with real-world topics that are being headlined around the country and the world (e.g. Clark, 2022; Westheimer, 2015). This does not mean forcing a certain curriculum, but rather exposing students to a wider range of perspectives, authors, and world views to inform their conversations. This in turn could support students in fostering a sense of social responsibility and shifting their commitments beyond their inner circle alone.

Importantly, though, as many critical theorists have warned, critical pedagogies cannot be limited to only discussion and analysis as they are insufficient – and even potentially harmful in isolation – because they can leave students not only ill-prepared, but also feeling hopeless without a plan of action (e.g. Freire, 1970/2000; Shor, 1992; Watts and Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Thus, Watts and Flanagan’s (2007) framework is useful in considering ways of moving beyond discussion alone including action-research projects where students identify an issue that they care about, research its origins, collaboratively brainstorm solutions, and execute a plan of action (e.g. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008; Seider and Graves, 2020; Westheimer, 2015). Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) have also shown how critical pedagogies can be incorporated into multiple elements of school ranging from English classrooms (analyzing a range of texts to complement the traditional literary canon to foster critical media literacy and social analysis) to college access programs (combining regular skill-building of such programs with projects that allowed students to apprentice as researchers examining inequities in college accessibility for youth of color) to sports programs (examining the impact of culture on critical awareness and action) to youth participatory action research (engaging students in the process of acting as researchers and civic actors in their communities).

Similarly, Seider et al. (2020) have highlighted how schools have targeted different elements of Watts and Flanagan’s (2007) model to foster youth critical consciousness and sociopolitical development. For example, in order to support students in developing their ability to analyze systems of oppression, Seider et al. (2020) described how teachers explicitly taught students the ‘Three I’s of Oppression’ (interpersonal racism, internalized racism, and institutional racism; Ritchhart, 2002) and used that framework to evaluate different forms of racism. In order to foster student agency, Seider et al. (2020) detailed how teachers used a curriculum focused on economic and racial injustice (e.g. students learned about oppression and responses to oppression in the US Civil Rights Movement, apartheid in South Africa, and the genocide of Native Americans as ways to understand how they could shape their own resistance) and were given time to discuss inequality with their peers. Finally, opportunities to practice democratic action can include teachers giving students repeated opportunities to engage in real-world problems (at the school, community, and national level) and to seek and to act upon innovative solutions (see Seider and Graves, 2020; Seider et al., 2020). With these critically conscious approaches to teaching, students engage in a Freirean (Freire, 1970/2000) tradition of praxis (action-reflection) in response to real-world inequalities (Seider and Graves, 2020), reflecting a justice-orientation of social responsibility.

Critical pedagogies are also a way of pushing character education away from a personally-responsible focus toward a more justice-oriented stance in classrooms. For example, Clark and Seider (2017) have examined how a character strength such as curiosity can be fostered with a social justice lens by researching the development of critical curiosity, which can be defined as a desire to learn about and to develop an understanding of social justice (Clark and Seider, 2017; Freire, 1970/2000). Rather than focusing on the cultivation of individual curiosity alone, this character strength is cultivated in service of broader community concerns through exposing students to new perspectives and learning about topics relevant to their own lives (Clark and Seider, 2017).

Finally, it is also important to reiterate that critical pedagogies were not designed for White, privileged students; nonetheless this philosophical orientation is instructive for this institution for multiple reasons. First, Thistle Academy represents a privileged, elite environment, but this status does not represent the entire student body or encompass the intersectional identities of all students in that space (e.g. Curry-Stevens, 2007; Gaztambide-Fernández, 2009; Gaztambide-Fernández and Angod, 2019; Swalwell, 2015; Swalwell and Spikes, 2021). Second, critical pedagogies for privileged youth may be important for developing activist allies in the fight for justice (Applebaum, 2006; Curry-Stevens, 2007; Diemer et al., 2016; Swalwell and Spikes, 2021; Watts et al., 2003). We see these results as a call to action for such educators to reflect upon their own practice to see where they might be supporting a justice orientation of social responsibility of their students, and where their approaches may be limiting.

Orienting all students toward justice

These findings highlight the need for citizens who are critical thinkers and innovative creators who also have a sense of social responsibility with a justice orientation. While critics argue that topics of social justice, race, privilege, equity, and even social-emotional learning should be banned from schools (e.g. Schuessler, 2021), many scholars and activists argue that the development of social responsibility in schools is a critical and moral imperative and that students from privileged backgrounds must recognize their own role in challenging and taking action against oppression (e.g. Applebaum, 2006; Curry-Stevens, 2007; Diemer et al., 2016; Seider, 2008; Swalwell, 2013, 2015; Watts et al., 2003). Swalwell (2015), for example, in her research on critical civic education and economically elite students, has warned that focusing solely on improving the civic education of students in high-poverty schools implies that there is no need to challenge affluent youth to engage in social justice. Similarly, Applebaum (2006) has argued for a reconceptualization of how we think about moral responsibility to acknowledge White complicity in systemic oppression. Without these broader commitments and compassion for others, we risk further entrenching inequities and further isolating communities.

Thistle Academy’s mission is not explicitly dedicated to social justice, but rather to moral development and to putting others’ needs before one’s own. Because of their schoolwide commitment to student-led discussions, they are also firm believers in not prioritizing one political stance over another. We could argue, then, that challenging students to think beyond their inner circle and to orient themselves toward justice is not political at all, but rather a simple broadening of students’ circle of care. We could point to the ways in which critical pedagogies seek to humanize education – not politicize it. However, as many scholars have argued, all teaching is a political act: educators have perspectives and viewpoints, and both the presence and the absence of these values impact student learning (e.g. Shor, 1992; Westheimer, 2015). Our findings point to the potential dangers of the individual nature and depoliticization of character and schooling itself (e.g. Jerome and Kisby, 2019, 2022; Kahne and Westheimer, 2003). Students at Thistle Academy developed a strong base of discussion skills, perspective-taking, question-asking, and empathy and care for one another – but seemingly all in service of academics alone. Given the teachers’ comments noting especially the need for additional outlets for student voices, this robust foundation seems like a missed opportunity for the contributions that these students could make for the greater good.

Conclusion

Embodying a justice orientation of social responsibility should be everyone’s work. Privileged youth must be exposed to societal inequities and challenged to see their role in advocating for and fighting for change. Students at Thistle possess a strong ethic of care that is promising as foundational building blocks for a justice orientation of social responsibility; but without a critical lens, these students’ care focused primarily on one another. We urge educators at Thistle and other similar institutions to consider how to integrate critical approaches (e.g. those put forth by Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, 2008; Seider et al., 2020; Swalwell, 2015; Watts and Flanagan, 2007) into their instruction. We must examine the books we select, the topics we discuss, the messages we champion, and the perspectives and voices we choose to bring into the classroom. This does not mean forcing an agenda, but rather supporting students in gaining the skills to critically analyze the world around them and to take action in the face of injustice. Indeed, all the teachers we spoke with emphasized the importance of Thistle’s commitment to student-driven and student-led discussions, underscoring the ways in which this approach played a crucial role in students’ development as thinkers and as people. Nonetheless, schools such as Thistle Academy who are authentically committed to moral development as a guiding value must reflect on the kind of social responsibility they are fostering and continue to challenge themselves to expand their students’ sense of criticality, obligation, and responsibility to the greater good outside their school walls. This missed opportunity cannot be ignored.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Madora Soutter

Notes

References

Althof

Berkowitz

(2006) Moral education and character education: Their relationship and roles in citizenship education. Journal of Moral Education 35(4): 495–518.

Applebaum

(2006) In the name of morality: Moral responsibility, whiteness and social justice education. Journal of Moral Education 34(3): 277–290.

Astuto

Ruck

(2010) Early childhood as a foundation for civic engagement. In: Sherrod

Torney-Purta

Flanagan

(eds) Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement in Youth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.249–275.

Blow

(2015) Confederate flags and institutional racism. New York Times, 24 June. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/opinion/charles-blow-confederate-flags-and-institutional-racism.html (accessed 20 March 2022).

Braun

Clarke

(2013) Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: SAGE Publications.

Campbell

(2008) Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior 30(4): 437–454.

Campbell

(2012) Introduction. In: Campbell

Levinson

Hess

(eds) Making Civics Count: Citizenship education for a new generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, pp.1–13.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.

CIRCLE (2021) Educating for American democracy: A roadmap to transform K-12 civics. Available at: https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/educating-american-democracy-roadmap-transform-k-12-civics (accessed 25 March 2021).

10.

Clark

(2022) Leading dilemma discussions. The Good Project, 1 April. Available at: https://www.thegoodproject.org/good-blog/2022/4/1/leading-dilemma-discussions (accessed 10 June 2022).

11.

Clark

Seider

(2017) Developing critical curiosity in adolescents. Equity & Excellence in Education 50(2): 125–141.

12.

Clark

Soutter

Lee

(2020) Measuring character: EL education’s journey in developing tools for improvement and impact in social, emotional, and academic learning. Theoretical, psychometric, and educator considerations. Report written for EL Education.

13.

Curry-Stevens

(2007) New forms of transformative education: Pedagogy for the privileged. Journal of Transformative Education 5(1): 33–58.

14.

Dewey

(1916/1966) Democracy and Education. New York, NY: Free Press.

15.

Dewey

(1938) Experience and Education. New York, NY: Free Press.

16.

Diemer

Rapa

Voight

, et al. (2016) Critical consciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression. Child Development Perspectives 10(4): 216–221.

17.

Doerr

(2015) Volunteering as othering: Understanding a paradox of social distance, obligation, and reciprocity. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning & Civic Engagement 6(2): 36–57.

18.

Duncan-Andrade

Morrell

(2008) The Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving From Theory to Practice in Urban Schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

19.

Eisenberg

(2000) Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 665–697.

20.

El-Amin

Seider

Graves

, et al. (2017) Critical consciousness: A key to student achievement. Phi Delta Kappan 98(5): 18–23.

21.

Flanagan

(2013) Teenage Citizens: The Political Theories of the Young. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Flanagan

Stout

(2010) Developmental patterns of social trust between early and late adolescence: Age and school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence 20: 748–773.

23.

Freire

(1970/2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

24.

Gaztambide-Fernández

(2009) What is an elite boarding school? Review of Educational Research 79(3): 1090–1128.

25.

Gaztambide-Fernández

Angod

(2019) Approximating whiteness: Race, class, and empire in the making of modern elite/white subjects. Educational Theory 69(6): 719–743.

26.

Hart

Atkins

Fegley

(2003) Personality and development in childhood: A person-centered approach. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 68(1): i–vii. 1.

27.

Hoffman

(2000) Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Jerome

Kisby

(2019) The Rise of Character Education in Britain: Heroes, Dragons, and the Myths of Character. London: Macmillan.

29.

Jerome

Kisby

(2022) Lessons in character education: Incorporating neoliberal learning in classroom resources. Critical Studies in Education 63(2): 245–260.

30.

Johanek

(2012) Preparing Pluribus for unum: Historical Perspectives on Civic Education. In: Campbell

Levinson

Hess

(eds) Making Civics Count: Citizenship Education for a New Generation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, pp.57–87.

31.

Kahne

Westheimer

(2003) Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. Phi Delta Kappan 85: 34–66.

32.

Kaler-Jones

(2020) When SEL is used as another form of policing. Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@justschools/when-sel-is-used-as-another-form-of-policing-fa53cf85dce4 (accessed 7August 2020).

33.

Kirshner

(2015) Youth Activism in an Era of Education Inequality. New York, NY: NYU Press.

34.

Ladson-Billings

(1995) Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal 32(3): 465–491.

35.

Learning for Justice (2021) Available at: www.learningforjustice.org (accessed 15 March 2021).

36.

Levinson

(2012) No Citizen Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37.

Malin

(2018) Teaching for Purpose: Preparing Students for Lives of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

38.

Maxwell

(2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

McClellan

(1999) Moral Education in America: Schools and the Shaping of Character From Colonial Times to the Present. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

40.

Mehta

Fine

(2019) In Search of Deeper Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

41.

Mitchell

Donahue

Young-Law

(2012) Service learning as a pedagogy of Whiteness. Equity & Excellence in Education 45(4): 612–629.

42.

Morais

Ogden

(2011) Initial development and validation of the global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education 15(5): 445–466.

43.

New York Times (2022a) Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest map and case count. New York Times, 2 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html (accessed 17 June 2022).

44.

New York Times (2022b) A partial list of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. New York Times, 21 June. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/article/mass-shootings-2022.html (accessed 25 June 2022).

45.

Nucci

Turiel

(2009) Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. Mind Brain and Education 3: 151–159.

46.

Oberle

Schonert-Reichl

Hertzman

, et al. (2014) Social–emotional competencies make the grade: Predicting academic success in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 35: 138–147.

47.

O’Connell

(2009) Compassion: Loving Our Neighbor in an Age of Globalization. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

48.

Paris

Alim

(2017) Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

49.

Plumer

Zhong

Friedman

(2022) Time is running out to avert a harrowing future, climate panel warns. New York Times, 28 February. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/climate/climate-change-ipcc-un-report.html (acccessed 17 June 2022).

50.

Ritchhart

(2002) Intellectual Character: What It is, Why It Matters, and How to Get It. Malden, MA: John Wiley.

51.

Rose

(2013) Being careful about character. Phi Delta Kappan 95(2): 44–46.

52.

Sawchuck

(2021) What is critical race theory, and why is it under attack? Education Week, 18 May. Available at: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05 (accessed June 17 2022).

53.

Schuessler

(2021) Bans on critical race theory threaten free speech, advocacy groups says. The New York Times, 8 November. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/arts/critical-race-theory-bans.html (accessed 17 June 2022).

54.

Seider

(2008) Resisting obligation: How privileged adolescents conceive of their responsibility to others. Journal of Research in Character Education 6(1): 3–19.

55.

Seider

(2012) Character Compass: How Powerful School Culture Can Point Students Toward Success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

56.

Seider

Clark

Graves

(2019) The development of critical consciousness and its relation to academic achievement in adolescents of color. Child Development 91(2): e451–e474.

57.

Seider

Graves

(2020) Schooling for Critical Consciousness: Engaging Black and Latinx Youth in Analyzing, Analyzing, Navigating, and Challenging Racial Injustice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

58.

Seider

Kelly

Clark

, et al. (2020) Fostering the sociopolitical development of African American and Latinx adolescents to analyze and challenge racial and economic inequality. Youth & Society 52(5): 756–794.

59.

Seidman

(1991) Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

60.

Shor

(1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

61.

Simmons

(2019) Why we can’t afford whitewashed social-emotional learning. ASCD Education Update 61(4): 2–3.

62.

Simmons

(2021) Why SEL alone isn’t enough. Educational Leadership 78(6): 30–34.

63.

Smetana

Tasopoulos-Chan

Gettman

, et al. (2009) Adolescents’ and parents’ evaluations of helping versus fulfilling personal desires in family situations. Child Development 80: 280–294.

64.

Soutter

(2019) Unintended lessons of SEL programs. Phi Delta Kappan 100(5): 59–62.

65.

Soutter

Clark

Lee

(2022) Holding schools accountable for equity in character measurement: Bridging theory and practice. Journal of Character Education 18(1): 113–134.

66.

Swalwell

(2013) “With great power comes great responsibility”: Privileged students’ conceptions of justice-oriented citizenship. Democracy & Education 21(1): 1–11.

67.

Swalwell

(2015) Mind the civic empowerment gap: Economically elite students and critical civic education. Curriculum Inquiry 45(5): 491–512.

68.

Swalwell

Spikes

(2021) Anti-Oppressive Education in “elite” Schools: Promising Practices and Cautionary Tales From the Field. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

69.

Tumin

(2022) Special edition: Roe v. Wade is overturned, 24 June. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/briefing/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court-guns.html (accessed 25 June 2022).

70.

Wagaman

(2011) Social empathy as a framework for adolescent empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research 37(3): 278–293.

71.

Watts

Flanagan

(2007) Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology 35(6): 779–792.

72.

Watts

Hipolito-Delgado

(2015) Thinking ourselves to liberation?: Advancing sociopolitical action in critical consciousness. The Urban Review 47(5): 847–867.

73.

Watts

Williams

Jagers

(2003) Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology 31(1/2): 185–194.

74.

Wentzel

(2013) School adjustment. In: Reynolds

Miller

(eds) Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 7, Educational psychology. pp.213–232. New York, NY: Wiley.

75.

Westheimer

(2015) What Kind of Citizen? Educating Our Children for the Common Good. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

76.

Westheimer

Kahne

(2004) What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal 41(2): 237–269.

77.

Wray-Lake

Syvertsen

(2011) The developmental roots of social responsibility in childhood and adolescence. In: Flanagan

Christens

(eds) Youth Civic Development: Work at the Cutting Edge. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, vol. 134. pp.11–25. New York, NY: Wiley Online Library.

78.

Wray-Lake

Syvertsen

Flanagan

(2016) Developmental change in social responsibility during adolescence: An ecological perspective. Developmental Psychology 52(1): 130–142.

79.

Yates

Youniss

(2010) Community service and political identity development in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues 54(3): 495–512.

80.

Yeung

Renton

Berlinger

, et al. (2022) Russia invades Ukraine. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-02-22/index.html (accessed 17 June 2022).

81.

Youniss

Yates

(1997) Community Service and Social Responsibility in Youth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

82.

Zembylas

(2006) Witnessing in the classroom: The ethics and politics of affect. Educational Theory 56(3): 305–324.

83.

Zhong

(2022) These climate scientists are fed up and ready to go on strike. New York Times, 1 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/climate/ipcc-climate-scientists-strike.html (accessed 17 June 2022).

84.

Zraik

(2021) Racism is declared a public health crisis in New York City. New York Times, 19 October. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/nyregion/nyc-racism-healthcare-system.html (accessed 17 June 2022).