Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned •...

OFFICE OF DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE“...promoting the transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world.”

APPROACHES TO CIVIC EDUCATION:LESSONS LEARNED

June 2002

Technical Publication Series

Office of Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC 20523-3100

TO ORDER THIS DOCUMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

• Please reference the document title (Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned) and documentidentification number (PN-ACP-331).

• USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas mayorder documents at no charge.

• Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countriesmay order up to five titles at no charge.

• All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable,reproduction and postage costs will be billed.

Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)E-mail orders to [email protected]

ABOUT THE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION SERIESThe USAID Office of Democracy and Governance Technical Publication Series was launched in March1998. The series includes publications intended principally for USAID personnel; however, all persons interestedin the sector may benefit from the series. Authors of individual publications may be USAID officials and/orother individuals from the public and private sector. The DG Office reserves the right to review and edit allpublications for content and format and all are subject to a broad USAID review process. The series isintended in part to indicate best practices, lessons learned, and guidelines for practitioner consideration. Theseries also includes publications that are intended to stimulate debate and discussion.

A list of other relevant publications and ordering information are included at the back of this document.

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATIONThis document reports on lessons learned from a multi-part research investigation into USAID’s civic educationprogramming. In order to better understand how and under what conditions civic education contributes to thedevelopment of a more active and informed democratic citizenry, USAID initiated the study to measure theimpact of both adult and school-based civic education programs on participants’ democratic behaviors andattitudes.

Comments regarding this publication and inquiries regarding USAID’s civic education programming shouldbe directed to

Gary Hansen, DirectorCivil Society DivisionTel: (202) 712-1524Fax: (202) [email protected]

Office of Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian AssistanceU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC 20523-3100

More information, including electronic versions of the DG Office’s Technical Publication Series, is availablefrom the DG Office’s Intranet site at http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/ and USAID’s democracy Internet site athttp://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/

ABOUT THE DG OFFICEThe Office of Democracy and Governance is the U.S. Agency for International Development’s focal pointfor democracy and governance programming. The DG Office’s role is to provide USAID and other developmentpractitioners with the technical and intellectual expertise needed to support democratic development. Itprovides this expertise in the following areas:

C Rule of LawC Elections and Political ProcessesC Civil SocietyC Governance

http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/

mailto:[email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sharon MorrisSharon holds a Ph.D. in political science (international/comparative politics) from the University ofChicago. Before joining the DG Office, she worked as a research associate both with the Program onGlobal Security and Sustainability at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and with MarvinZonis and Associates, a political consulting firm specializing in the area of international political economy.She has been a program assistant at The Asia Foundation and has also held positions at CARE and AsianSurvey. Sharon is a member of the civil society division, where she is focusing on the relationship betweendemocracy assistance and conflict prevention.

Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned was built on the scholarship and hard work of manypeople, but eight in particular deserve special mention and thanks. Gwen Bevis, Stephen Finkel, ChrisSabatini, and Sheryl Stumbras designed, researched, and wrote the initial quantitative studies of civiceducation conducted in the Dominican Republic, Poland, and South Africa. Harry Blair pulled this worktogether in a comprehensive synthesis and kept the project going by organizing a series of workshops andconferences on the topic. Franca Brilliant not only wrote an outstanding case study report and evaluation,but also, together with Rachael Wilcox, did a superb job organizing a workshop that brought togetherscholars and practitioners to comment on this report. Participants at the various workshops andconferences also made a significant contribution to the overall quality of this publication through theircomments, criticism, interest, and support. And finally, Karen Farrell brought her considerable analyticalskills and editorial talents to bear, making the report far clearer and more comprehensive than it wouldotherwise have been.

APPROACHES TO CIVIC EDUCATION:LESSONS LEARNED

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5

II. CIVIC EDUCATION, DEMOCRACY, AND USAID’S APPROACH .................................... 7

A. School-based Civics Programs ........................................................................................... 8B. Adult Civic Education ........................................................................................................ 8C. USAID Programs................................................................................................................ 8D. Key Variables in Civic Education Programs...................................................................... 9

III. REPORT FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 11

A. Adult Findings .................................................................................................................. 12B. School Findings ..................................................................................................................19

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................... 23

V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 29

VI. WANT TO KNOW MORE? ...................................................................................................... 31

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over the past decade, civic education has become a major component of USAID democracyprogramming. By the end of the 1990s, Agency spending on civic education had reached roughly $30million a year, with the total for the decade approaching $232 million. In spite of heavy investment byUSAID and other international donors, relatively little is known about the impact of civic educationprograms on democratic behaviors and attitudes, particularly in developing countries.

In order to better understand how and under what conditions civic education contributes to thedevelopment of a more active and informed democratic citizenry, the Agency initiated a major multi-partstudy designed to measure the impact of both adult and school-based civic education programs onparticipants’ democratic behaviors and attitudes. Beginning in 1996, USAID’s Center for Democracy andGovernance (now its Office of Democracy and Governance) managed the study, which looked at adultand school-based civic education programs in the Dominican Republic, Poland, and South Africa. Usingboth quantitative and qualitative methods, this study represents a pioneering effort, both as a researchinitiative and as a practical application in managing for results in the democracy sector.

The results of the study show that civic education programs for adults can have a significant, positiveimpact on certain key aspects of democratic behaviors and attitudes. In particular, civic education appearsto contribute to significantly greater rates of political participation among program participants,especially at the local level. It also leads to more moderate, but still significant, differences inparticipants’ knowledge about their political system and about democratic structures and institutions ingeneral, and it also tends to contribute to a greater sense of political efficacy. However, civic educationprograms appear to have little effect on changing democratic values, such as political tolerance, and infact, appear to have a negative impact on some values, such as trust in political institutions. Additionally,the study found that men tended to receive greater benefit from civic education than women and that,while women showed gains in a number of important areas, civic education tended to reinforce genderdisparities in the political realm.

The findings for school-based civic education programs mirror those for adult programs, although theimpact of civics training was generally weaker and more inconsistent for students than for adults. Inaddition, school and family environment were found to be powerful forces affecting the behaviors andattitudes of students, forces that need to be taken into account in designing programs for students.

By far the most important finding to emerge from the study, one that applies equally to adult and school-based programs, is that course design and quality of instruction are critical to the success of civiceducation programs. In addition to this more general finding about the importance of course quality anddesign, the study found that civic education programs are most effective when

••••• Sessions are frequent. There appears to be a “threshold effect” in terms of number of courses,where one or two sessions have little to no impact, but, when the number increases to three ormore, significant change occurs.

••••• Methods are participatory. Breakout groups, dramatizations, role-plays, problem solvingactivities, simulations, and mock political or judicial activities led to far greater levels of positivechange than did more passive teaching methods such as lectures or the distribution of materials.

Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned2

••••• Teachers are knowledgeable and inspiring. Not surprisingly, teachers who fail to engage theirstudents have little success in transmitting information about democratic knowledge, values, orways to participate effectively in the democratic political process.

On the basis of these and other findings, a series of recommendations and lessons emerged for designingmore effective civic education programs. These are

• Be aware of, and try to design around, obstacles to frequent participation: Even whenprograms are explicitly designed to meet frequently and have the funding to do so, there are oftenobstacles to regular participation. To the extent possible, groups conducting civic educationshould assess possible barriers to participation and try to address them before implementing aprogram.

• Use as many participatory methods as possible: The evidence shows that role-plays,dramatizations, small group exercises, and group discussions are all far more effective tools forimparting knowledge about democratic practices and values than more passive methods.

• Build opportunities for participation directly into the program: One of the surest paths togreater local political participation over the longer term is to tap into or build opportunities forpolitical participation directly into the civic education program, whether through non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) or meetings with local government officials. This involves more than simplyusing the types of participatory methods mentioned above. Rather it involves building opportunitiesfor direct political engagement into the program.

• Focus on themes that are immediately relevant to people’s daily lives: In designing civiceducation projects, program managers should work to identify an audience’s primary concerns,and then show how democracy and governance issues relate to those concerns. For example, if acommunity’s priority is halting environmental degradation, one approach may be to “piggyback”civic education components, such as the importance of participatory decision-making at thecommunity level, onto initiatives designed to address environmental concerns.

• Invest in the training of trainers: Given the importance of course design and teaching method,the training of trainers is a good investment. It is crucial that trainers feel comfortable with abroad range of teaching methods, and have the flexibility to adapt both method and coursecontent to the immediate concerns of program participants.

• Target voluntary associations: Since people who already have extensive social networksappear to benefit more from civic education than people who do not tend to join social, economic,or political groups, group membership may be a useful screening device for recruiting participantsinto civic education programs.

• Pay attention to gender issues: Women generally face greater obstacles to participation thanmen in terms of resources and cultural barriers, particularly in the developing world. Programs thataddress these deeper barriers to participation may be required over and above civic education toreduce the gap between men and women.


• Avoid inflating expectations: In light of the fact that civic education appears to reduceparticipants’ trust in institutions, program leaders should be aware that there is a risk of settingstandards too high and of creating unrealistic expectations about what democracy can and shoulddeliver. To this end, programs may want to focus on specific short-term goals, in addition tobroader issues of political or constitutional reform.

• Bring parents, teachers, and school administrators into school-based programs: Schoolenvironment and family beliefs and practices are powerful influences on the democraticorientations of children and young adults. Unless civic education programs take account of theseforces, they are likely to overwhelm any new messages that are taught.


I. INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, civic education hasbecome a major component of USAIDdemocracy and governance programming. Bythe end of the 1990s, Agency spending on civiceducation programs had reached roughly $30million a year, with the total for the decadeapproaching $232 million. In spite of heavyinvestment by USAID and other internationaldonors, relatively little is known about the impactof civic education programs on democraticbehaviors and attitudes, particularly in developingcountries.

In order to design and implement more effectiveprograms, it is vital that those working in the fieldof democracy assistance have a deeperunderstanding of when and under whatconditions civic education encourages moreinformed and responsible political participationand builds support for important democraticvalues. It is also important that USAID be ableto respond quickly and effectively to questionsconcerning the impact of its different democracyprograms.

As a response to both of these imperatives, theAgency initiated a major multi-part studydesigned to measure the impact of civiceducation on participants’ democratic behaviorsand attitudes. Beginning in 1996, the now Officeof Democracy and Governance initiated a studythat looked at adult and school-based civiceducation programs in the Dominican Republic,Poland, and South Africa. Prior to this study,there had been no systematic attempt to answerwhat actual impact USAID-supported civiceducation programs had on their participants.

The first part of the study consists of threereports (Sabatini, Bevis, and Finkel, 1998;Finkel and Stumbras, 2000; and Office ofDemocracy and Governance, forthcoming.A)that use rigorous quantitative techniques to

measure the impact of 10 adult and 5 school-based civic education programs in the DominicanRepublic, Poland, and South Africa. There wereseveral reasons for selecting the three countriesinvolved in the assessment. First, they representthe three regions in which USAID has beenmost active over the 1990s in supporting civiceducation (Latin America and the Caribbean,Africa, and Europe and Eurasia). Thesecountries also comprise an excellent range ofenvironments within which USAID hassupported civic education initiatives. Each of thethree was in political transition in the mid-1990s—exactly the sort of situation in whichcivic education could be expected to havemaximum impact. In this context, civic educationwould have something valuable to offer at a keymoment in a country’s democratic trajectory, andprogram participants would have a strongincentive to benefit from it, as they pondered theprospects of living under a new political system.Each of these countries, in other words, wasseen to have a need for a jump-start approach todemocratic politics. An additional factor worthnoting is that, while all three countries hadrecently dealt with prolonged authoritarianperiods of varying intensity, each also hadexperiences with less harsh political systems—some more distant than others.

A fourth report (Office of Democracy andGovernance, forthcoming.B) offers acomprehensive review of 11 civic educationprograms in the four regions in which USAIDoperates. It analyzes these programs in terms ofthe central DG problem the program wasdesigned to address, the program content andmethodology, the target audience, and the rolelocal partners played in program design andimplementation. Drawing on in-depth casestudies, it then traces out lessons learned andbest practices.

Both the quantitative and qualitative parts of theoverall study were rigorously designed todetermine whether civic education had any


effect on a range of democratic behaviors andattitudes and to determine the conditions underwhich civic education is most successful. Assuch, this study represents an important andsubstantial first step in building a base ofevidence against which the Agency can measureprogress in the area of DG assistance.

The central objective of the current publicationis to make use of these findings to help DGofficers design, implement, and evaluate civiceducation programs in a range of countrycontexts. It begins with a discussion of the rolecivic education plays in democratic transitions,outlines two broad types of programs—adult andschool-based, discusses some of the keyvariables that need to be considered whendesigning a civic education program, andprovides information on previous USAID effortsin this area.

It then synthesizes the central findings of thefour studies mentioned above and, drawing onthese findings, advances a detailed set ofrecommendations for designing more targetedand effective civic education programs,illustrating with examples from successful andless successful initiatives. The report concludeswith a discussion of the limitations of civiceducation, and what DG officers can realisticallyhope to accomplish with these types ofprograms.


II. CIVIC EDUCATION,DEMOCRACY, ANDUSAID’S APPROACH

For a democracy to survive and flourish, acritical mass of its citizens must possess theskills, embody the values, and manifest thebehaviors that accord with democracy. Theymust know enough about the basic features of ademocratic political system to be able to accessit when their interests are at stake, and they mustbelieve in the importance of certain keydemocratic values, such as tolerance fordivergent viewpoints and support for the rule oflaw. They must also be willing and able toparticipate in local and national politics, and theymust believe that their participation is importantto the continued viability of the democraticpolitical system.

In most mature democracies, citizens have hadthe opportunity to absorb democratic beliefs andpractices over a lifetime. As they participate infamily and neighborhood life, join localorganizations, move through the educationalsystem, and are exposed to a free andindependent media, citizens have the opportunityto absorb and practice the basic norms of ademocratic culture.

In countries emerging from long periods ofauthoritarian rule, this preparatory experience islargely missing. While many informaldemocratic practices may exist at the communitylevel, citizens are unlikely to have muchknowledge about formal democratic structuresand processes and may be unaware of theopportunities that exist for advancing theirinterests at the local, regional, or national levels.

Furthermore, after years of arbitrary rule,citizens may have unrealistic expectations aboutwhat democracy is able to achieve and mayexperience difficulty adjusting to the competition,compromise, and loss that are inherent parts of

the democratic political process. Without valuessuch as political tolerance, trust in democraticinstitutions, and respect for the rule of law, thismore competitive aspect of the democraticprocess can be severely destabilizing, particularlyif it ignites or exacerbates economic, ethnic,religious, or regional tensions.

How then are the citizens of new democracies togain the skills, values, and behaviors that arethought to be necessary for a stable and effectivedemocracy? One answer to this question is civiceducation, which essentially seeks to jump-startthe process of democratic socialization bypromoting support for democratic behaviors andvalues among ordinary citizens. In this view,civic education is designed to achieve threebroad goals:

• To introduce citizens to the basic rulesand institutional features of democraticpolitical systems and to provide themwith knowledge about democratic rightsand practices

• To convey a specific set of valuesthought to be essential to democraticcitizenship such as political tolerance,trust in the democratic process, respectfor the rule of law, and compromise

• To encourage responsible and informedpolitical participation—defined as acluster of activities including voting,working in campaigns, contactingofficials, lodging complaints, attendingmeetings, and contributing money

A wide range of groups and individuals seeks toimplement these goals. Civic education may beincorporated into the programs of pre-existinggroups, such as labor unions, schools, religiousinstitutions, or NGOs. Organizations may alsoestablish themselves explicitly for this purpose(i.e., civic fora or human rights training groups).Civic education programs also take many forms.


Programs may range from voter education tolong-term human rights workshops to promotionof civic dialogue. The programs also coveractivities from the adoption of new curricula inschools in order to teach young people aboutdemocracy, to programs that focus on the socialand political rights of women, to neighborhoodproblem solving activities. All of these efforts,which emphasize teaching about citizens’ rightsand responsibilities, can be roughly divided intotwo broad types of civic education programs:school-based civics training and adult civiceducation.

A. School-based Civics Programs

While citizens master civic skills throughouttheir life, early learning experiences are thoughtto be especially important in terms ofdeveloping support for democratic norms.School-based programs, therefore, weaveteaching about democratic institutions, principles,and practices into a range of courses, fromkindergarten programs that focus on promotingparticipatory teaching methods to senior highschool programs that emphasize impartingspecific knowledge about democratic institutionsand practices to young adults.1

Many school-based programs, particularly thosein Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union,were initially conceived as a counter to the long-standing practice of using schools as an arenafor inculcating authoritarian or totalitarian

ideologies. The central purpose of school-basedprograms remains to instill an ethic ofdemocracy in teachers, administrators, andstudents, and, through this process, lay thegroundwork for creating more effective andinformed democratic citizens in the future.Because most school-based programs workthrough the formal education sector, they areoften designed and implemented in closecollaboration with host-country governments andtheir educational institutions.

B. Adult Civic Education

The task of fostering a democratic cultureamong adults has fallen primarily to NGOs ratherthan to governments, and the vast majority ofthese types of programs are voluntary. Adultcivic education programs cover a wide variety ofconcerns, from voter education, to human rightsknowledge, to citizen leadership training. Theirformats also cover a broad range, from informalsessions held just once to elaborate andstructured programs lasting many months. Aswith the school-based programs, the assumptiondriving many of these efforts is that the transferof democratic knowledge, values, and skills willtranslate into responsible and effectiveparticipation once the program has ended.

C. USAID Programs

Given low rates of participation in most politicalsystems, particularly those in the developingworld, even moderate differences connectedwith good civic education programming hold thepotential to make a significant contribution todemocratization. For this reason, USAID hasprovided significant support to both adult andschool-based civic education programs as part ofits overall assistance in the DG sector.

During the early years of democracy assistance,USAID Missions often chose to focus onprograms that responded to an immediate need,such as voter education or training for election

1 While most of USAID’s child-centered civic educationhas taken place in the school environment, we recognizethat children may gain access to democratic practices andvalues in other important ways. In many countries in whichUSAID works, voluntary scout movements, sports groups,and religious youth associations, for example, play aprominent role in transferring civic norms that a countryvalues. To simplify our discussion here, however, we arefocusing only on those child-centered programs that areschool-based.


monitors before national or local elections. Also,the Agency often relied on well-knowninternational partners to design and implementcivic education programs. Over time USAIDbegan to shift its focus to a broader range ofcivic education initiatives and to place moreemphasis on increasing local capacity to providecivic education in order to tailor programs for abetter fit with local conditions.

Local NGOs were frequently partners in USAIDattempts to increase local capacity and tailorprograms to fit local conditions. In the wake ofsuccessful transitions, many of theseorganizations shifted their focus to take up thechallenges of democratic consolidation. As partof an overall strategy of strengthening civilsociety, USAID began to encourage localorganizations to teach citizens in newdemocracies about their rights andresponsibilities. Where possible, USAID alsoworked with governments to expand civicstraining in schools.

Over the course of the 1990s, USAID allocatedsignificant and increasing investments to civiceducation. In the early 1990s, allocations wereroughly $10-20 million a year. By the end of thedecade, they exceeded $30 million annually.2Altogether, the Agency’s total investment in civiceducation has exceeded $232 million.

The Asia and the Near East region initiallyreceived the largest amount of funding for civiceducation, then Africa became the largestrecipient for several years, to be replaced byEurope and Eurasia at the decade’s end.Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbeanhas remained fairly steady throughout, risingslowly from about $2 million per year at thebeginning of the 1990s to about $8 million in FY

2000. Over the course of the decade, just under37 percent of civic education funding has gone toprograms in Africa, 28 percent to Europe andEurasia, slightly more than 20 percent to LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, and about 11percent to Asia and the Near East.

D. Key Variables in Civic EducationPrograms

In thinking through which type of civic educationprogram will be most appropriate in a givencountry context, it is useful to keep in a mind aseries of key variables that shape the overallcharacter of the program. These include thecentral DG problem addressed; objectives andgoals of the program; target audience; andmethodology. These variables overlap andreinforce each other, and, with the exception ofbeginning with an identification of key DGproblems, it is not necessary to move throughthem in a sequential manner.

1. Central DG Problem

As with the other components of a mission’s DGportfolio, civic education programs are designedto address fundamental weaknesses in a nation’sdemocratic system. These can includedifferential access to justice, marginalization ofcertain groups such as women or ethnicminorities, low levels of citizen participation inthe policy making process, and lack ofknowledge and/or voter apathy preceding

2 As a proportion of the total democracy budget in theAgency, however, allocations have been declining some-what, from a high of 8.4 percent in FY 1992 to the 5-6percent level in the late 1990s.

DESIGNING A CIVIC EDUCATION PROJECT

! Identify central democracy problem! Set program objectives! Identify target audience and program content! Measure participants’ baseline knowledge,

practices, and values! Select methodology! Measure improvement


elections. Defining the central problem will setthe parameters for program, influence theselection of goals and objectives, help identifythe most appropriate target audience, and shapeprogram content. (See Conducting a DGAssessment, ordering info. on back cover.)

2. Objectives and Goals

Civic education seeks to accomplish a numberof general goals, such as impart knowledgeabout democratic practices and institutions, instillcore democratic beliefs and values, andencourage more active and informed politicalparticipation. While many programs includesome or all of these elements, most tend to focuson one or two goals. The more specificobjectives and goals of a civic educationprogram should be driven by the key DGproblem identified earlier. For example, if a keyproblem is defined as a lack of knowledge aboutthe mechanics of voting in the lead up toelections, then a central objective might be totransmit information on electoral procedures andpractices to the largest number of possiblevoters. Similarly, if a mission has identified alack of responsiveness in local government as akey democracy problem, then one goal of civiceducation might be to bring local electedofficials and their constituents together inprograms that are designed to find solutions tocommunity problems.

3. Target Audience

Civic education programs have traditionallyreached out to a broad range of groups, frompre-school students, to women’s groups, tolawyers concerned with how to address humanrights concerns within a democratic framework.One of the key findings of the USAID study,which will be discussed in greater detail below,is that adapting the content of a course to theimmediate needs and concerns of the targetaudience is absolutely vital to the success of aprogram. If the target audience is a rural

community, for example, and the community’score concerns center on access to health care,then more abstract lessons about democracy andgovernance are likely to have greater relevanceand more enduring impact if they are wovenaround these core concerns. Therefore, inaddition to the democracy problem addressed,target audience is a critical element to considerwhen setting course content.

4. Methodology

Civic education programs have also tended torely on a broad range of methods to teachdemocratic orientations and behaviors, includinglectures, discussion groups, fora and panels,dramatizations, role-plays, communityorganizing, materials distribution, and avenues ofthe mass media. Again, as will be discussed ingreater detail below, some methods—principallymore active methods such as dramatizations androle-plays—are far more successful than othermethods are in terms of encouraging change.

Method also needs to be tailored to goals andobjectives. If the goal is to encourage a lastingchange in democratic behavior, then more activemethods are necessary. If, however, the goal issimply to convey information about a particularevent, such as an election, then more passivemethods such as lectures and mass media mayplay an important, even critical role. To take onecompelling example, because of time constraintsand a lack of funding, the Indonesia governmentwas unable to provide classroom training forelection monitors and, therefore, broadcast ashort course on the roles and responsibilities ofmonitors over national television. SinceIndonesia hadn’t had an election in over 40years, many ordinary citizens tuned in. Oneunintended consequence of using the mass mediato conduct these courses was that a largenumber of ordinary voters knew as much aboutwhat a fair electoral process should look like asdid the monitors.


Democratic Behavior and Values Assessed inCivic Education Study

• Local Participation

• General Participation

• Political Knowledge

• Political Efficacy

• Political Tolerance

• Support for Elections

• Trust in Institutions

• Satisfaction with Democracy

III. REPORT FINDINGS

Given the amount invested in civic educationprograms and the Agency’s current emphasis onmanaging for results, finding a way to measurethe impact of civic education has becomeparticularly important. Most evaluations to datehave looked at implementation and managementissues, such as numbers of people trained, orhave provided anecdotal information about theimpact of civic education programs on specificindividuals or communities. While suchinformation is useful, it is not easily generalized,nor does it offer much guidance for futureprogramming.

Therefore, the civic education studies referencedearlier represent something of a pioneeringeffort, both as a research initiative and as apractical application in managing for results inthe democracy sector. In particular, thequantitative studies yield a set of findings thathave broad relevance and are applicable acrossa range of country contexts. The researchersconducted a rigorous statistical analysis of 10adult and 5 school-based civic educationprograms in the Dominican Republic, Poland,and South Africa. Altogether, approximately4,700 adults and 1,900 students were givenquestionnaires designed to measure their level ofpolitical participation, knowledge about thepolitical system, sense of political efficacy, andsupport for key democratic values such aspolitical tolerance, support for regular elections,and trust in governmental institutions.

Roughly half of the people who answered thesurvey had participated in a civic educationprogram (the treatment group), while the otherhalf (the control group) had not. The treatmentand control groups were chosen to be as similaras possible along a number of importantdimensions such as race, gender, and age.Recognizing, however, that democraticorientations such as individual attitudes to

democratic participation or levels of politicalknowledge are likely to be driven by more thanexposure to civic education, the researchers alsotested for the influence of other importantfactors such as education, income, communitysize, employment status, membership involuntary associations, and exposure to massmedia. The use of treatment and control groups,plus the inclusion of additional statisticalcontrols in the analysis, makes it possible todetermine whether the answers of the peoplewho participated in civic education programsdiffer in any significant way from the controlgroup, and, if they do, whether this differencecan be attributed to the effect of civic education.This basic design is tried and true, and whenwell done, provides a reasonable answer to:What are we getting for our program dollar?

Focus groups provided an additionalmethodology to flesh out information obtainedfrom the surveys. In particular, they were used toget more in-depth information about participants’experiences in the training sessions and theirattitudes toward various aspects of democracysuch as participation and trust. Several focusgroups were conducted in Poland and South


Africa, and it had been hoped to do so in theDemocratic Republic as well, but polling delaysprevented this.

In general terms, the results of the statisticalanalysis show that civic education does have asignificant, positive impact on certaindemocratic behaviors and attitudes, with thecaveat that the quantitative results wereconsiderably weaker for school-based programsthan for adult civic education programs.In looking at the full range of democraticbehaviors and attitudes, civic education appearsto have the greatest positive impact on rates ofpolitical participation, particularly at the locallevel. Civic education programs were also linkedto greater participants’ knowledge aboutdemocratic structures and institutions, and theirsense of political efficacy, although gains herewere less than with local participation. However,civic education programs appeared to have littleeffect on changing democratic values such aspolitical tolerance and, in fact, in some casesappeared to have a negative impact on trust inpolitical institutions.

By far, one of the most important findings tocome out of the study is that course design andquality of instruction are more important thancivic education training in and of itself inexplaining levels of variation. That is, if civiceducation programs are not well designed andtaught, they have virtually no positive impact ondemocratic behaviors and attitudes.

Specifically, the reports found that civiceducation programs are most effective when

• Sessions are frequent. There appears tobe “threshold effect” in terms ofcourses, where one or two sessions havelittle to no impact, but when the numberincreases to three or more, significantchange occurs.

• Methods are participatory. Breakoutgroups, dramatizations, role-plays,problem solving activities, simulations,and mock political or judicial activitiesled to far greater levels of change than

Inter-American Democracy Network

The Inter-American Democracy Network (IADN)grew out of the work Partners of the Americas haddone under its USAID-funded DemocracyInitiatives project in the Latin America andCaribbean region. The project started in 1993, andits goal was to promote democratic skills andvalues and increase citizen participation in thegovernance process. In 1995, the grant wasamended to create the IADN, a group of four LatinAmerican civil society organizations and auniversity, plus partners.

IADN’s experience offers participatory andinteractive training techniques for civic education,which have proven to be more effective thanpassive training methods. The methods andinformation it provides to its NGO participants canbe adapted by the NGOs to serve already existingprograms and interests. This flexibility makes itmore likely that the NGOs will implement what theyare learning. In addition, this allows the NGOs todevelop civic education messages that arerelevant and culturally appropriate to their ownconstituencies.

The IADN points to an important lesson about theuse of “deliberation.” As a model for civiceducation, deliberation has two goals: inform andeducate the public, and assist in decision-makingon public policy issues. Fora that are backed bystrong organizations or strong networks havebeen shown to be effective as decision-makingtools, as they can readily offer channels forcommunicating decisions to the broader publicand relevant authorities. Fora held for strangers orbroader audiences are more likely to be effectiveas public education tools. Organizations anddonors should analyze the context in which theyare using deliberation to determine which goal ismore appropriate and the value of achieving thatoutcome.

from Civic Education Programming Since 1990


did more passive teaching methods suchas lectures or distribution of materials.

• Teachers are knowledgeable andinspiring. Not surprisingly, teacherswho fail to engage their students havelittle success in transmitting informationabout democratic knowledge, values, orways to participate effectively in thedemocratic political process.

In sum, the studies showed that civic educationcan lead to positive change along a number ofimportant democratic dimensions, but that it isnot enough for individuals simply to be exposedto any civic education program. What matters isthe frequency and quality of the training that isreceived. The importance of this finding cannotbe overstated. The clearest implication is that,

unless civic education programs are done well,they are probably not worth the investment. Thefollowing section examines the findings for firstadult and then school-based civic educationprograms in more detail, and it looks at howfactors such as gender, educational background,and group membership come into play. Theresults of the statistical studies are summarizedin Table 1. For all of the results presented, ratesof variation are only for those programs thatmeet the criteria for high quality instruction justlaid out.

A. Adult Findings

1. Political Participation

In general, civic education programs, if donewell, appear to have the strongest effect on rates

TABLE 1: PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND BEHAVIORS OFCIVIC EDUCATION TREATMENT GROUPS

Dominican Republic Poland South Africa

Local Participation 10 35 18

General Participation 11 17 2

Political Knowledge 13 9 5

Political Efficacy 11 14 13

Political Tolerance 8 10 14

Support for Elections 7 14 6

Trust in Institutions -8 -8 7

Satisfaction w/ Democracy -4 3 2


of adult political participation, particularly at thelocal level. In the surveys, political participationwas broadly defined to include a broad range ofactivities such as voting, taking part incommunity problem-solving activities, attendinglocal government meetings, participating inprotests, contributing to election campaigns, andcontacting elected officials.

Responses to the survey show that when civiceducation programs meet frequently and aretaught using participatory methods, there aresignificant differences in many of these types ofparticipatory political behaviors. This effect isclearest in the case of Poland. As shown in Table1, roughly 25 percent of the control groupreported participating in two or more localpolitical activities per year, while fully 60 percentof those who participated in civic educationprograms reported engaging in two or more localpolitical acts, a difference of 35 percentagepoints. Although not quite as dramatic, the resultsfor South Africa and the Dominican Republicalso show significant positive differences in localpolitical participation, 18 percent for South Africaand 10 percent for the Dominican Republic.

In looking more closely at these results, theresearchers found that greater levels ofparticipation appear to be strongly conditionedby several other factors. First, civic educationprograms are more effective when they buildopportunities for participation directly into theprogram, either by tapping into pre-existingchannels for participation or by or by creatingtheir own. For example, a number of the mostsuccessful programs worked in closecollaboration with local NGOs that had politicaladvocacy at the core of their mission. Othersuccessful programs created their own channelsfor participation by setting up meetings betweenprogram participants and elected officials.Building participation into the program involvesmore than simply using the types ofparticipatory teaching methods discussed earlier.It involves linking participants directly to the

Peruvian Institute for Education inHuman Rights and Peace

In 1985 a group of educators joined together asthe Peruvian Institute for Education in HumanRights and Peace (IPEDEHP) to defend the rightsof Peruvian citizens; IPEDEHP was funded in partby USAID. Initially IPEDEHP decided that teachingteachers would be the most effective way tocombat massive human rights violations in Peru.Since then, IPEDEHP has trained over 13,000teachers and has developed a cadre of 250teachers qualified to train others in human rightsand democracy. In 1996, IPEDEHP decided toextend its program to community leaders.

In Peru, there has been continuous progresstoward citizens becoming better prepared toexercise their rights and responsibilities. Thepercentage of Peruvians reporting knowledge oftheir basic rights and responsibilities increasedfrom 29 percent in 1996 to 34 percent in 1999. Onthe other hand, this percentage amongdisadvantaged citizens has hovered around 10-11percent over the last four years. Nevertheless, 67percent of disadvantaged citizens know where togo to protect their rights. At the national level, 53percent of citizens who know their rights andresponsibilities have received some form of civiceducation or human rights training. USAIDcontributed to these efforts through its trainingprograms in women’s rights and political rights,rights-based learning programs in schools, andthrough support to IPEDEHP, which, incoordination with the ombudsman and the nationalcoordinator for human rights, trained an additional212 community human rights promoters in 1999.More than half of these community human rightspromoters were women who, along with 1,000trained promoters, trained more than 185,000persons in their communities in 1999.

Researchers have pointed out that the success ofIPEDEHP’s curriculum stems in part from its abilityto connect what is learned in the workshops andthe participants’ daily experiences. This examplesupports the finding that civic education programsare more effective when they present material thatis relevant to the daily lives of the participants.



democratic political process and providing themwith the opportunity to “learn by doing.”

For example, some of the greatest positivedifferences in local participation occurred inPoland, where the majority of the civiceducation programs the researchers examinedwere built around community problem solvingactivities. These programs actively sought tobring individuals together to identify problemsat the community level, and then helped arrangefor meetings with local officials in order todevise solutions to these problems. Similarly, thePeruvian Institute for Education in HumanRights (IPEDEHP) drew on an extensive supportnetwork of local and national human rightsNGOs in order to teach citizens about theirrights and provide a forum for discussion. Theseorganizations also served as a source of supportand information for participants once they leftthe program and began to develop their ownrights-based projects and initiatives.

The importance of hooking into or buildingchannels for participation is reinforced by thefinding that civic education has a significantlygreater impact on individuals who are moreeffectively integrated into pre-existing civilsociety groups than among more sociallyisolated individuals. That is, individuals whoalready belong to voluntary associations, such aspeasant associations, community groups, andchurch groups, appear to gain more from civiceducation than did their counterparts who did notbelong to extensive social networks. Forexample, this more connected group ofindividuals participated in local political activity atsignificantly higher rates than did theirunconnected counterparts after participation in acivic education program.

Second, levels of political participation appeargreater when civic education programs are ableto link broad lessons about democratic valuesand behaviors to the daily concerns andexperiences of program participants. To use the

Civic Education Fosters Dialogue andAction

In 1995, after decades of bitter civil war,Mozambicans were largely unfamiliar with theirrights and responsibilities in a democracy and howto participate in a peaceful political process. TheNational Democratic Institute for InternationalAffairs (NDI) worked with USAID/Mozambique on acomprehensive civic education program to equipcitizens for effective political participation.

NDI conducted a two-phase civic educationprogram that reached more than 265,000 citizens(out of an estimated 16 million) throughout thecountry. The first phase focused on rights andresponsibilities of citizens in a democracy, and thesecond on the structure of national governmentand the multiparty system. Many participants soonput their newly acquired democratic skills intoaction and tried to make improvements within theircommunities. In Sofala province, for example,participants wrote a letter to the District Office ofEducation complaining about the disappearance offunds the community had pooled for theconstruction of a school. The school administrationwas forced to pay the money back, and thisencouraged the community to provide additionalfunds, which enabled the school to be built.

In Manica province, residents learned they couldtry to prevent the illegal seizure of their land byinitiating a petition. As a result of the petition, theparty responsible for the land expulsions wasforced to cease activities. And in Mecufi district,civic education training resulted in residents makinguse of the press to express their concerns. Duringinterviews with journalists from Radio Mozambique,which were later broadcast, citizens denouncedillegal actions taken by police and questionedactions of the local administrator.

from African Voices, Winter/Spring 1998

example from Poland, course implementersencouraged participants to identify priorityproblems in their community and then wovelessons about democratic values and principlesinto activities designed around these issues.


2. Political Knowledge

Civic education also appears to have contributedto greater political knowledge in at least two ofthe countries under consideration. Knowledgeabout the basic features of the political system,such as who holds power, structure and functionof democratic institutions, basic political andcivil rights, and timing of elections, are criticalin terms of enabling effective politicalparticipation.

Increases in political knowledge appear to bestrongest in the Dominican Republic, whereparticipants showed a 13 percent gain over theircounterparts who had not participated in civiceducation training. Poland showed a slightlymore modest, but still significant gain of 9percent over the control group. A parallel butseparate study of civic education programs inZambia shows particularly strong gains in termsof political knowledge.3 For example, while only53 percent of individuals in the control groupwere able to name the vice president of Zambia,fully 91 percent of those who had received civiceducation were able to do so.

South Africa was the one country where therewas virtually no difference in democraticknowledge between participants and non-participants in civic education programs. Thiscan in part be attributed to the fact that, at thetime the programs were conducted in the mid-1990s, the baseline for political knowledge wasextraordinarily high among the control group inSouth Africa. Given that many South Africansalready knew the names of key political figures,such as Desmond Tutu and Thabo Mbeki, or hada general understanding of their civil and politicalrights, civic education programs were less likelyto lead to significant gains.

3 Bratton, 1999.

Getting Out the Word on Voting

USAID/Indonesia was faced with a challengerunning up to the 1999 parliamentary elections.Voter education in a country with the geographic,ethnic, and linguistic complexity of Indonesia was adaunting task. Yet, such an effort was seen ascrucial for the legitimacy of these groundbreakingelections.

USAID realized that the Solidarity Center, with itsnetwork of local NGO and labor partners, was in aunique position to help solve this problem. TheSolidarity Center supported a grassroots votereducation project with over 30 organizations in 18provinces of Indonesia. These organizationsconsisted of trade unions, local organizationsdedicated to worker issues, human rightsorganizations, women’s organizations, and similarorganizations. The Solidarity Center votereducation project emphasized working withregional organizations in order to take localdifferences and needs into account, as well as toreach voters at the grassroots level moreeffectively. With assistance from USAID and theSolidarity Center, these organizations

• Conducted over 650 voter education programsin the three-month pre-election period. Thesevoter education programs werecomprehensive face-to-face seminars at thegrassroots level. Topics included democraticprinciples, individual choice in a democracy, acitizen’s role in a democratic community, therole of legislators as representatives of thepeople, women’s rights to make an individualchoice in the election process, accessingpolitical parties and learning about platforms,and technical election process information.

• Directly reached over 120,000 eligible voters,including factory workers, first-time voters,women, rural villagers, and workers from theinformal sector.

• Created innovative voter education programsby using novel interactive methods, andincorporating unique methods of teaching suchas role-playing, theater programs, and speech/essay contests.


3. Political Efficacy

Political efficacy, or the extent to whichindividuals feel that they possess the knowledge,skills, and power to participate effectively in thepolitical process (e.g., by contacting localofficials) is another area where civic educationappears to have had some effect across all threecountries. Poland once again shows the highestrate of change at 14 percent, but similar gainswere found in the Dominican Republic and SouthAfrica as well.

4. Democratic Values

In general, the impact of civic education on keydemocratic values, such as political tolerance ortrust in political institutions, is mixed and not asstrong as it is for participation, knowledge, andefficacy. Respondents were asked a series ofquestions about their willingness to allow basicpolitical rights to minority groups or groups withunpopular views, their willingness to give upelections in exchange for stability and economicprosperity, and their level of trust in political andsocial institutions.

While several individual programs showed somepositive difference in these areas, as a whole,civic education failed to show a consistent,positive effect on the democratic values ofprogram participants. For example, politicaltolerance, widely viewed as a central democraticvalue, showed positive change in only a limitednumber of cases. For example, in the Zambianstudy referenced earlier, 69 percent of thecontrol group felt that it was important to accordthe right of free expression to all groups, eventhose who hold unpopular views, while 88percent of those who had received civiceducation did so, a gain of 19 percentage points.

However, this was one of the few exceptions tothe more general trend where those whoreceived civic education were no more politicallytolerant, or trusting of their fellow citizens to use

Civic ForumPalestinian Autonomous Areas

Through the National Democratic Institute forInternational Affairs (NDI), USAID has developedan innovative approach to civic education in theWest Bank and Gaza Strip. Through a series ofmoderated, community-based discussion groupsand the regular distribution of companion printedmaterial, the program called the CivicForum assists Palestinians with understandingdemocratic institutions and participation. At itsheight, more than 10,000 Palestinians participatedin the discussion groups each month.

In a volatile environment, NDI provided a peacefulsetting for Palestinians to gather information aboutdemocratic practices and engage in politicaldialogue and civic action. In 1999, NDI’s three-yearcivic education program was transformed into anindependent civic organization (Civic ForumPalestine) committed to advancing the democraticdevelopment of the Palestinian territories.

Palestinian citizens take their lessons into thecommunity by organizing civic activities to solvelocal problems, including advocating for reform ofthe Palestinian Authority. In addition, for the firsttime, Palestinians are calling on their governmentto serve and to be accountable. Veteran CivicForum participants, armed with an understandingof their rights and a new appreciation forpetitioning authorities, have called on governingauthorities to improve water and sewer systems,urged action on pollution, started schools andsports clubs, built soccer fields, and volunteeredtheir time to community efforts. The forum hasgrown into a popular feature of democratic activityand boasts the largest, nonpartisan grassrootsnetwork in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


another example, than the control group. Theseresults should not be viewed as particularlysurprising. Values are deeply held and are oftenformed over a lifetime. No matter how welldesigned and taught, as a general rule civiceducation programs are unlikely to makesignificant inroads in this area.


Vkloochis (Plugged In)Russia

In 1994, then-President Boris Yeltsin issued adecree requiring Russian election commissions atall levels to undertake voter education programs. Inresponse, the Central Election Commission (CEC)of the Russian Federation created acomprehensive program for voter education andassembled a working group to implement theprogram. Working group discussions led to a jointproposal to USAID by the CEC and theInternational Foundation for Election Systems toconduct a youth voter education program,Vkloochis (“plugged in”). The program aimed toovercome voter apathy as well as to provide youngpeople with basic information on voting. Vkloochiswas essentially a vast public information campaigncarried out across Russia by a network oforganizations for young people. It was based onthe “Rock the Vote” campaign led by MTV and therecording industry in the United States. Thecenterpiece of both programs was the use ofentertainment and lively materials to engage youngpeople. Vkloochis had three main elements:television programming, special events, andprinted materials and specialty items.

The impact of Vkloochis is demonstrated byYeltsin’s decision to launch a second, major youth-oriented voter education program that copied manyof the elements of Vkloochis. Vkloochis both actedas a model for voter education programs for youngpeople in Russia (and elsewhere in the region) andalso introduced the idea that engaging youngpeople in elections, and in the broader politicalprocess, was a valid and important activity.


5. Trust in Institutions

Interestingly, one area where researchers found aconsistent effect is that many civic educationprograms have a negative statistical effect onlevels of trust in government. For example,participants in the Dominican Republic were lesstrusting of a broad range of political institutions(e.g., the legal system, the legislature, and themedia) after participation in a civic educationprogram. The strength of this effect in theDominican Republic may reflect the fact that, atthe time of survey, the country was just beginningto emerge from authoritarian rule, and manyinstitutions were simply in greater need of reformthan in the other countries examined.

Also, by encouraging critical thinking amongprogram participants, civic education may serveto build awareness of political problems anddeficiencies in existing institutional arrangements.To the extent that this builds pressure for reform,this should be viewed as a positive effect of civiceducation, since an initial decline in trust could bean important first step in building awareness ofthe areas where political institutions need to bestrengthened.

6. Gender, Education, and Fade-out Issues4

In some cases, gender issues appear to play asignificant role in civic education programming.Men not only start out at higher levels on virtuallyevery measure of democratic participation,knowledge, and values, but in Poland and theDominican Republic they also appear to gainmore from civic education programs thanwomen. This was less true in South Africa.

4 The original set of civic education reports controlled for anumber of social and demographic variables, such as rural/urban residence and age. Gender and education wereidentified as the only two with consistent and independenteffects.

In the Dominican Republic, for example, some35 percent of men in the control group wereinvolved in local politics, while only 23 percent ofwomen engaged in political activity at the locallevel. Civic education improved things for bothsexes, but more so for men, whose numbersincreased by 20 points from 35 percent to 55percent, while women gained only 5 points from23 percent to 28 percent.


In Poland, these gender differences are evenmore pronounced. Men began with a 6-pointadvantage over women in terms of localparticipation (28 percent to 22 percent), butincreased that to 17 points (69 percent to 52percent) when they received civic education.Only in South Africa did women’s democraticvalues and behaviors change at roughly the samerate as men (19 percent each for localparticipation), but even so, the gender imbalanceinitially present in the control group carries overto participants in civic education.

What these results indicate is that increasingwomen’s participation is considerably moredifficult than simply changing attitudes or a senseof empowerment. Women generally face greaterobstacles to participation than men in terms ofresources and cultural barriers, particularly in thedeveloping world. Programs that address thesedeeper barriers to participation may be requiredover and above civic education to reduce the gapbetween men and women.

When educational levels are taken into account,the pattern is somewhat different than forgender. As with gender, the initial distribution inthe control group isn’t surprising. Those withmore education (in this case, high schooleducation or more) scored better on alldemocracy measures than participants with lesseducation, and, after participating in civiceducation programs, more educated participantsmaintained their lead. However, in more casesthan not, the less educated benefited more fromcivic education than their more highly educatedcounterparts. In particular, South African adultswith less education notched higher positivedifferences on all democratic dimensions. Theimplication is that civic education, when wellmanaged, can help overcome some of thepolitical advantages enjoyed by better educatedcitizens.

Beyond these demographic variables, one finalfactor the researchers examined was the impact

of “fade-out,” or the idea that over time theimpact of civic education programs will dissipateor even disappear. To the extent that impactfades over time, there may be seriousprogramming implications. For example, civiceducation may be useful in helping peopleprepare for an upcoming event, such as anelection, but may have little effect on longer-term democracy building efforts.

For most democratic dimensions there was somefade-out. This should come as no surprise, buteven so the net effects were positive. In Poland,for instance, 36 percent of those in the treatmentgroup felt that they possessed the skills toparticipate effectively in the democratic politicalprocess, as against 19 percent in the controlgroup—almost a doubling. After six months, thatproportion dropped to 32 percent, representing aloss, but only a slight one.

B. School Findings

The central purpose of school-based programs is,by and large, to lay the groundwork forresponsible democratic citizenship by educatingchildren and young adults about the types ofbehaviors and attitudes they will need to functioneffectively in a democratic society. Programsthat are aimed at achieving this goal can includefairly discrete and measurable activities (i.e.,imparting specific information about democraticprocedures and institutions in formal civicscourses). Programs can also be geared towardmuch deeper and less immediately observableresults, such as fostering a spirit of criticalinquiry, encouraging students to accept beliefsabout the importance of citizen participation,building a sense of shared responsibility andteamwork, and encouraging initiative.

It is extraordinarily difficult to measure this lessobservable, but critical, type of behavior andattitudinal change. Often, it is necessary to waityears before the students who were involved inthese types of programs become politically


active. Even if they do become modeldemocratic citizens, it is difficult to knowwhether this can be attributed to earlyeducational experience or was caused bysomething else that occurred during theintervening years.

Largely because of these measurement issues,the quantitative portions of the USAID studyyielded considerably weaker and moreambiguous findings for school-based programsthan for adult civic education. The strongest,clearest results tended to be for older students,who were poised on the brink of becomingpolitically active and were often in programs thatclosely resembled adult civic education initiativesin goal and content.

Therefore, in addition to presenting some of themost important findings from the quantitativeportions of the USAID study, the followingsection draws heavily on a series of separate,qualitative studies of programs for youngerchildren. Because many of these studies areevaluations of only a single program, it isimportant to be slightly more cautious aboutdrawing general conclusions. However anumber of common themes and findings doemerge, themes that are applicable to both olderand younger students.

One finding is that, as with adult civic education,course design and the quality of instruction arecritical to the success of most programs. Forexample, if civics courses meet frequently (atleast once a week), use participatory methods,and are led by knowledgeable and inspiringinstructors, students register positive changesalong a range of democratic dimensions. Moreoften than not, if these criteria are not met,students do no better, and sometimes do worse,than the overall student population.

Another finding that is common to both older andyounger students is that family attitudes towarddemocracy and the broader school

Street Law ProgramSouth Africa

The Street Law program in South Africa grew out ofa series of practical law workshops for teachersand students that were conducted by the U.S.Street Law program and a Natal University lawprofessor. As the program spread to additionaluniversities, a variety of donors, including USAID,provided funding. In the late 1980s, Street Lawadded human rights to its legal education program.In 1992, the program set up a national office at theUniversity of Natal, Durban, and in 1993-1994, itadded broad-based democracy education.

In 1996, Street Law operated out of 20 universities,with a presence in each of South Africa’sprovinces. It has trained a total of 240,000students using 15,750 trainers. Trainers includevolunteer students; professional educators;primary, secondary, and high school teachers; andcommunity activists. Democracy education as anexplicit component has reached 4,175 high schoolpupils and another 1500 participants in prisons,communities, unions, and various professions. In1997 and 1996, the program trained a total of21,877 and 16,180 participants, respectively.

The Street Law model has a number of notablecharacteristics. First, it is based on a highlyinteractive manual which uses many differentlearning methods, e.g., role-plays, simulations,and small discussion groups. Second, themanuals are explicitly designed to be responsiveto local conditions. The parent organization,Street Law USA, encourages this process andtreats the national organizations as partnersrather than subsidiaries. Thus there is a highdegree of local control over what material ispresented and how, while ensuring that thefundamentals are preserved.


environment—defined as the practices andattitudes of teachers, school administrators, andother students—exert a powerful influence onthe democratic orientations and behaviors ofmost students. Those programs that appear to be


most successful in changing student attitudes andbehavior draw teachers, school administrators,and family members, into the programs so thatlessons can be reinforced outside of theclassroom.

Illustrative of this integrated approach, Step byStep, an early childhood development programrun by Children’s Resources International, seeksto include family and community members in itsactivities. All Step by Step classrooms haveactive parent associations that contribute to thegovernance of the program. There are familyvolunteers in 90 percent of Step by Stepclassrooms versus 20 percent in traditionalclassrooms. More than half of the familiesinvolved with Step by Step also helped withclassroom maintenance and donated money tothe program. Many parents have also becomeadvocates, speaking on behalf of the programwith town officials, members of local educationauthorities, and business leaders.

One interesting outgrowth of Step by Step’semphasis on family and community involvementis that some of these programs have startedbroader efforts to address other critical socialneeds through community programs, fromdonating goods to families in need to organizinghealth clinics for neighborhood residents.

Against the backdrop of these general findings,and with reference specifically to older students,civics training did appear to lead to moderatechanges in school-based political participation.Since students are not able to engage in thesame range of political behaviors as adults, theywere asked a series of questions about theirengagement with politics and groups within theirschool. In percentage terms, those students whoreceived civics training on at least a weeklybasis were 14 percent more likely to participatein activities such as student government orstudent council meetings than students in thecontrol group.

Project CitizenBosnia-Herzegovina

Launched in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the war,Project Citizen is a civic education program for middleschool students that promotes competent andresponsible participation in local government. As aclass project, students work together to identify andstudy a public policy issue, eventually developing anaction plan for implementing their policy. Since theprogram began in 1996, 200,000 students rangingfrom upper elementary level through the twelfth gradehave participated in Project Citizen, usually in theirhomeroom free period or as an extracurricularactivity.

First, students learn about concepts of authority,privacy, responsibility, and justice. They consider thedifference between authority and power withoutauthority, the need for authority, where authority isfound, how rules and laws are made, and how tochoose people for positions of authority. They studythe importance of responsibility and the conflictsbetween competing responsibilities. Students thenlearn about distributive, corrective, and proceduraljustice. For most students, this is their first opportunityto consider and discuss these concepts. ProjectCitizen then teaches students how to monitor andinfluence public policy. Students work together toidentify public policy problems in their communities,select a problem for the class to study by voting on it,and develop a policy project for submission in anational competition.

A study found that well over half of all participatingstudents did not stop at the competition, but tried toimplement their projects by contacting localgovernment officials. Nearly a third had success inimplementing their projects. One example is inPrijedor, where students succeeded in getting the citygovernment to provide new trashcans, benches, andflowers for their city. In a survey conducted after theprogram, students who participated in Project Citizenshowed significantly higher levels of participatorybehavior, research skills, and knowledge about localgovernment than a closely matched set of studentswho did not participate in the program. Project Citizenparticipants also demonstrated slightly greaterpolitical tolerance toward some groups than did non-participants. In addition, participants tended to bemore supportive of the rule of law.



A survey conducted after the program showedthat students who participated in the Center forCivic Education’s Project Citizen in Bosnia-Herzegovina showed significantly higher levelsof participatory behavior, research skills, andknowledge about local government than a closelymatched set of students who did not participatein the program.

Civic education also has a positive effect onstudents’ political knowledge. About one third ofSouth African high school students who receivedweekly civics training were able to answer fiveor more questions about their political systemcorrectly as compared with only one quarter ofthe control group. In percentage terms, thisrepresents roughly a 10 point change indemocratic knowledge.

As with adults, in the area of democratic valuesthe results were inconsistent and generally weak.Students who received civic education were nomore supportive of democracy as a form ofgovernment, no more tolerant of groups withunpopular views, no more supportive of the ruleof law, and no more supportive of women’spolitical participation than students in the controlgroup.

One value that did show some change in theSouth African case is called “civic duty.” Thatis, students who received civics training weremore likely than their untrained counterparts tobelieve that voting in local elections, payingtaxes, and taking part in political decisions thataffect their community were importantresponsibilities of citizens living in a democracy.Similarly, South African students’ overallsatisfaction with the way democracy is working,as well as their expectations for the politicalsystem in the future, was greater afterparticipation in civic education programs.


IV. RECOMMENDATIONSAND LESSONSLEARNED

The central lesson that informs and underpinsevery other recommendation to emerge from thisstudy is that course design and teachingmethods are critical to the success of civiceducation programs. At one level, this seemsobvious, but it has profound programmingimplications. If civic education programs arewell designed and well taught and if they meetfrequently, use participatory methods, stresslearning by doing, and focus on issues that havedirect relevance to participants’ daily lives, theycan have a significant, positive impact ondemocratic participation and attitudes.

If courses do not possess these qualities—if theyrely primarily on passive teaching methods, meetonly a few times, or make no attempt to linkmore abstract lessons about democracy topeople’s daily experience, they have little to noeffect. In other words, people who participate inthese types of programs are no different from thecontrol group on most measures of democraticbehavior and attitudes. This is as true for school-based programs as it is for adult civic education.The implication is that, if civic education is notdone well, it is probably not worth doing at all.

Evidence drawn from both qualitative andquantitative studies on civic education also tendsto suggest that it is not enough to improve onjust one dimension (e.g., frequency of sessions)without paying attention to other factors (e.g.,participatory methods). Although some goodteaching methods are better than none, formaximum impact all need to be present.

Missions are often faced with pressure toachieve impact at the national level. However, iffunds are limited, the results of this study pointto focusing on smaller, concentrated initiatives

instead of national programs where participantsmeet only one or two times. This is less likely tobe true for programs that focus on preparingcitizens for a one-time event, such as those thatprovide technical information about themechanics of voting in the lead up to a particularelection. However, for those programs that havechanging long-term behaviors and attitudes astheir goal, the need to focus is critical.

Although there is a clear tradeoff betweenimpact and numbers reached, the approach offocusing on a few effectively designed and well-run programs promises to achieve significant andsustained change. If there is overriding pressureto achieve national impact and funds are limited,civic education may not be the best candidate forfunding.

Within this broad lesson about the importance ofpaying attention to, and investing sufficientresources in, course design and teaching method,a number of more specific recommendationsemerge:

• Be aware of, and try to craft effectiveresponses to, barriers to frequentparticipation

The reports clearly show that frequent exposureto civic education is one of the key elements inensuring its effectiveness. Yet, even whenprograms are explicitly designed to meetfrequently and have the funding to do so, thereare often obstacles to regular participation. Ateam of researchers explored this issue in moredepth in a series of focus groups held in SouthAfrica. Individuals who participated in thesesessions listed a range of reasons for notattending more than one session, including thefact that they often could not afforduncompensated time away from work or werenot offered incentives for participation, such asmeals at day long sessions or transportation tothe site.


Another more difficult barrier to frequentparticipation is resistance from local elites, whoare either unenthusiastic about civic educationor feel that these types of programs mightundermine their authority. One participant froma focus group in Durban noted that “chiefs feelthreatened that if you teach people about humanrights, then people will no longer respect them.”In countries with little to no previous experiencewith democratic rule, these barriers are likely tobe particularly salient. Similarly, trainers from theSouth African Street Law initiative reported thatthey faced significant resistance from schoolofficials and teachers in their efforts to conductcivic training in schools. This may help explainwhy fewer than half the students in thisparticular program were trained on a weeklybasis, despite the explicit goal of weekly training.Not all of these constraints can be designedaround, but some can be, and groups conductingcivic education must do as much as possible toassess possible barriers and take them intoaccount before implementing a program.

• Use as many participatory methods aspossible

The evidence overwhelmingly supports theconclusion that participatory teaching methodsare critical to the success of civic educationprograms. Role-plays, dramatizations, smallgroup exercises, and group discussions are farmore effective tools for imparting knowledgeabout democratic practices and values than morepassive methods such as lectures or thedistribution of materials. In a range of focusgroup discussions, trainers and participantsstated categorically that “lectures do not work”and that emphasis should be placed on helpingparticipants find their own way toward the skillsand behaviors that will enhance their role asdemocratic citizens.

Participatory approaches have the advantage ofreinforcing lessons about democracy in a directway, for example by making tolerance for

dissenting views an integral part of groupdiscussions. Similarly, by voting on the choice ofa policy topic to address, students whoparticipated in Project Citizen in Bosnia andHerzegovina were directly exposed todemocratic processes. Using participatoryapproaches may also contribute to a sense ofpolitical efficacy by providing participants withthe psychological space and support that theyneed to speak openly about political matters.Through this type of training and support,individuals may begin to view themselves asactors, rather than as passive recipients ofgovernment action.

• Build opportunities for participation directlyinto the program

Closely related to the finding about theimportance of participatory teaching methods, isthe finding that civic education had the greatestimpact on participants when programs broughtindividuals directly into contact with localauthorities or engaged in local problem-solvingactivities. The evidence clearly shows that oneof the surest paths to greater local politicalparticipation over the longer term is to tap into orbuild opportunities for political participationdirectly into the civic education program,whether by working through NGOs or arrangingmeetings with local government officials. Thisinvolves more than simply using the types ofparticipatory methods discussed earlier; rather, itinvolves building opportunities for directpolitical engagement into the program.

Very generally speaking, many of the mostsuccessful programs followed a similar pattern:problem identification, the formulation ofinitiatives designed to resolve the problem, andthen identification of political channels forpursuing those initiatives. For example, the civiceducation project run by the Foundation for theSupport of Local Democracy (FSLD) in Polandimplemented programs in 22 small towns. Afterinitial surveys of local problems and barriers to


participation, FSLD chose project leaders in eachsite and provided them with training in practicalknowledge and skills such as team building, howgovernment works, and negotiation. Theseleaders then brought members of theircommunity and local government officialstogether to work on identifying and resolvingtheir community’s most pressing local problems.

Another example is the Peruvian Institute forEducation in Human Rights’ (IPEDEHP)program. The IPEDEHP created two sets oflinkages: first a support network consisting ofnational NGOs, local community organizations,and like-minded individuals, and second, adirect relationship with two governmentalinstitutions responsible for dealing with humanrights issues. Participants were able to draw onthese linkages both during the program and after,as many launched follow-up activities in theirown communities, such as establishing localhuman rights committees. Interviews with agroup of graduates showed that for someparticipants, this combination was verysuccessful.

• Focus on themes that are immediatelyrelevant to people’s daily lives

To be most effective, civic education programsshould be designed around themes that areimmediately relevant to people’s daily lives. Thisrecommendation is consistent with a large bodyof literature on political participation: people acton specific problems or events that areimmediately important to them. Therefore, indesigning civic education projects, programmanagers should begin with the assumption thatthe target audience will act in its own self-interest, and then work democracy andgovernance lessons into programs that addressthose interests.

This is not always easy, particularly when thepriority interests in a community are not related

to democracy and governance in an immediatelyobvious manner. In many developingdemocracies, for example, issues such as jobcreation, crime prevention, AIDS prevention,access to primary health care, and environmentaldegradation are of more immediate concern thanbroader and more abstract issues, such asconstitutional reform or citizen responsibility.

However, programs designed to address thesemore immediate community concerns may offerimportant avenues for incorporating civiceducation lessons. For example, donor programsthat attempt to organize community response toenvironmental degradation often implicitly relyon democratic methods and practices to mobilize,lobby, and achieve results. As such, theyfrequently produce civic education results, that is,individuals who are better equipped to articulatetheir interests and engage in the political process.To the extent that USAID officers working inthese areas understand the criteria for successfulcivic education, they can make their ownprograms more effective and contribute to thebroader goal of democratic development.

These types of programs may also ultimatelyexpand their scope to include explicit DGcomponents. One example of this is the WALHIprogram in Indonesia that moved fromorganizing and training individuals about theirrights with regard to natural resources to civiceducation and activism.

These types of cross-sectoral programs may beparticularly effective in pre-transition settingswhere overt democratization activities may beproscribed. But at any point, those programs thathook directly into the most pressing needs of acommunity and show how democraticparticipation can address that need will be mosteffective.

• Invest in the training of trainers

As a corollary to the recommendations about theimportance of course design and teaching


method, the training of trainers to provide highquality instruction is a good investment. It iscrucial that trainers feel comfortable with abroad range of teaching methods, and have theflexibility to adapt both method and coursecontent to the immediate daily concerns ofprogram participants. One possible approach is“team teaching”, where a staff person withextensive knowledge of teaching methods anddemocratic content is paired with a respectedlocal community member who can link broaderdemocracy issues to local concerns.

This emphasis on training of trainers impliesmore front-loaded program costs, particularly ifexpatriate staff are involved. However, theexpatriates certainly need not all be western.Indeed, there is good scope for sharing expertiseacross regions. For example, the best trainersfrom South Africa could go to Nigeria to workwith Nigerians to adapt those models that wereparticularly successful. Similarly, experts fromPoland might be able to transfer lessons fromsuccessful programs to the Ukrainian or CentralAsian context.

• Target voluntary associations

Since people who already have extensive socialnetworks appear to benefit more from civiceducation than people who do not tend to joinsocial, economic, or political groups, groupmembership may be a useful screening devicefor recruiting participants. Such an approachwould have the added attraction of providingcivic education to those who (being groupmembers) would be most likely to spread whatthey had learned. One cautionary note is thatprogram designers need to be aware that thisstrategy might in some instances lead to anunwarranted focus on elites.

• Pay attention to gender issues

The findings strongly imply that future civiceducation programming should pay particular

attention to gender issues. In general, not only domen start out at higher levels in terms of politicalparticipation and knowledge, they also tend togain more overall from civic education. Much ofthis may be due to deeply held cultural valuesand practices, and it is unreasonable to expectcivic education to make much headway in thisregard.

However, gender concerns should be a highpriority in the minds of trainers. For example,given that building opportunities for participationdirectly into a program is a key element in itssuccess, trainers need to make sure that thechannels they build or tap into are ones thatwelcome women as well as men. For example,teachers might want to find ways to link womenparticipants with local or communityorganizations that may not be explicitly political,but nonetheless use democratic methods fordecision making. Alternately, community problemsolving exercises might be designed to includeareas where women traditionally have had somesay.

If careful attention is paid to gender issues,programs that have helped energize malestoward political participation substantially morethan females (as in Poland), might be modifiedto have a more equal impact, as has been thecase in South Africa.

• Avoid inflating expectations

Few governments can measure up to theoptimistic and rosy portraits of democracy thatare presented in some of the materials that areused in civic education programs. Programimplementers should be aware that there is a riskof setting the standards too high and of creatingunrealistic expectations about what democracycan and should deliver, and how quickly. To thisend, programs may want to focus on specificshort-term goals, in addition to broad issues ofreforming political institutions. In addition, it isimportant to emphasize that, as the study’s data


indicate, it is not unusual for citizens’ trust ingovernmental institutions to decline, at leastinitially.

• Bring parents, teachers, and schooladministrators into school-basedprograms

One clear finding from the analysis of school-based programs is that the broader schoolenvironment and family beliefs and practices arepowerful influences on the democraticorientations of children and young adults.Unless civic education programs take account ofthese forces, they are likely to overwhelm anynew messages that are taught. For example,since families play a critical role in eitherreinforcing or canceling out democratic lessons,if parents are included in civic educationprograms, the chances of achieving a significantand lasting impact on students is likely to grow.

Both the Step by Step program in the formerSoviet Union and the USAID-funded Oravaprogram in Slovakia provide examples ofprograms that took a more holistic approach tocivic education and sought to engage teachers,school administrators, and parents in theirprograms. They worked with teachers andadministrators to change the process andorientation of the classroom, to give teachersmore control within the educational bureaucracy,and to engage parents in the children’sclassrooms.


V. CONCLUSION

The findings presented here tell a cautiouslyoptimistic story about what DG officers can hopeto accomplish through civic education. If welldesigned and well taught, civic educationprograms hold the potential for changing keybehaviors and attitudes in a direction thatultimately strengthens democracy. Programparticipants are more active in politics, arepolitically active at the local level, and knowmore about the basic features of their politicalsystem than non-participants. Civic educationhas less of an impact on changing values, buteven core values, such as political tolerance andrespect for the rule of law, changed under someconditions.

At the same time, the analysis clearly shows thatthe effects of civic education are almost whollydependent on whether a course is well designedand well taught, that is if it meets with sufficientfrequency, uses participatory teaching methods,and fields knowledgeable and inspiringinstructors. It is not enough for individuals to beexposed to any type of civic education programfor democratic attitudes to change. What mattersare the frequency and quality of the educationreceived. Unless these conditions are met, noeffects are likely to be observed on mostdemocratic behaviors and attitudes.

Even when all the right conditions are met,donors and implementers need to be cautiousabout how much they can accomplish throughcivic education programs in the short term. Civiceducation has a positive effect on a range ofbehaviors and attitudes, but there is a cleartradeoff between numbers reached andeffectiveness. To be truly effective, programsneed to be concentrated on a relatively smallnumber of recipients. Therefore, small,cumulative effects are more likely than broad,immediate changes. On the basis of thesefindings, civic education is best considered as

one possible component within a broader DGstrategy.

Even though the studies reviewed here representan important advance in terms of our knowledgeabout when civic education programs are likelyto be effective, many important questionsremain. Some programs were better able tochange values than others; some seemed betterable to reach out to women. To date there is stillno clear understanding as to why this was thecase, and how to address these issues throughprogram design.

The fact that many questions still remain pointsto the need for building evaluation andassessment into future civic education programs.If this is done on a systematic basis, the Agencycan begin to build a database of civic educationprograms that have had a demonstrable impacton participants’ democratic behavior andattitudes. Many of these programs, onceidentified, may yield valuable lessons that can betransferred to new country contexts.

One of the best ways to ensure effectivemeasurement of impact is to survey programparticipants before they begin a program togauge their level of political participation andknowledge and to determine their support for keydemocratic values. Surveying them again afterthe course then yields a clear comparison, andimpact is much easier to assess using far simplermethods. Such pre-testing not only allows forbetter assessment of impact, but it would helpidentify which skills and attitudes were strongeror weaker in a particular cohort, and the programcould be tailored to better meet the needs ofparticipants.

These studies also support our understandingthat the Agency has attained solid footing onwhat types and tactics of civic educationprograms work for adults and older children.Other areas that it is clear that we need toexplore in further detail include very young


children, gender imbalances, and backgroundconditions enabling civic education. As such, thisstudy marks an important step in our betterunderstanding civic education and its impact,while it emphasizes the necessity of furtherdiligence to seek to apply the lessons learned andto study systematically these outstandingquestions.


VI. WANT TO KNOWMORE?

Almond, Gabriel, and Sidney Verba. 1963. TheCivic Culture: Political Attitudes andDemocracy in Five Nations. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

The authors present a seminal study onpolitical socialization that explores civicculture and its relationship to politicalattitudes and democracy.

Brady, Joanne P., et al. 1999. “Evaluation of theStep by Step Program.” Washington, DC:Education Development Center for USAID,Improving Educational Quality Project II.

The overarching purpose of the evaluation isto gain a better understanding of the role ofchild-centered learning strategies in creatingdemocratic, collaborative behaviors at thelocal level in Eastern Europe and CentralAsia. The report synthesizes findings aboutparticipatory educational practices and theirimpact on parents, students, andcommunities in Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan,Romania, and Ukraine.

Brady, Joanne P.; and Jody Spiro. 2000 “OravaProject Evaluation Report.” Washington, DC:Education Development Center for USAID,Bureau for Europe and Eurasia.

Report examines the Orava project, aprogram implemented in Slovakia designedto reform pedagogical practices in Slovakiain order to promote democracy. Theevaluation identifies the projects long-termadvantages in producing change in theSlovak educational system. On the otherhand, it also notes weaknesses in school/community linkages.

Bratton, Michael, and Joseph Temba. 1999.“Effects of Civic Education on Political Culture:

Evidence from Zambia.” World Development27 (5): 807-824.

Through a comparison of results from twosocial surveys, the article examines theeffects of civic education programs onpolitical culture in Zambia. Among itsfindings are that civic education hasobservable positive effects, but mainlyamong privileged elements in society; civiceducation has consistently greater impact oncitizen’s knowledge and values than on theirpolitical behavior; and, that with the possibleexception of informal methods such as dramashows, means have yet to be devised toinduce citizens to become active voters.

Brody, Richard A. December 1994. “SecondaryEducation and Political Attitudes: Examining theEffects on Political Tolerance of We the People .. . Curriculum.” Calabasas, CA: Center for CivicEducation.

This study was designed to determine thedegree to which civics curricula in general,and the We the People... program inparticular, affect students’ political attitudes.The report was based on analysis of surveyresponses of 1,351 high school studentsfrom across the United States. It drawsconclusions about participatory methodsused in the program and greater politicaltolerance among students.

Ehrlich, Thomas. 1999. “Civic Education:Lessons Learned.” Political Science & Politics32 (2): 245-9.

The writer discusses a pilot project topromote civic learning and shares someinitial lessons learned. The ambitious goal ofthe project was to educate undergraduatestudents in San Francisco to become and toremain actively involved in strengtheningtheir communities and enhancing socialjustice. He contends that many of theproblems uncovered in the project areendemic to community service courses andremain a challenge for most campuses,


although some have successfully overcomethem. He also asserts that aside from thecited problems, the pilot course proved verypromising for providing students with ahands-on education in democraticcitizenship and civic leadership.

Finkel, Steven; Lee Siegelman; and StanHopkins. 1999. “Democratic Values and PoliticalTolerance.” In Measures of Political Attitudes,edited by John P. Robinson, 203-296. New York:Academic Press.

The chapter discusses empirical evidenceabout civic education programs and theireffects on democratic values and politicaltolerance of participants. It outlines some ofthe difficulties of changing these attitudesand gives insights about limitations andrealistic expectations for civic educationprograms.

Finkel, Steven; Christopher Sabitini; andGwendolyn Bevis. 2000. “Civic Education, CivilSociety, and Political Mistrust in a DevelopingDemocracy: the case of the DominicanRepublic.” World Development 28 (11): 1851-74.

The paper explores the effect of donor-supported civic education programs onlevels of citizen trust in institutions in theDominican Republic. Using attitudinalsurveys of control and treatment groups, thepaper demonstrates that civic education hada trust, with the greatest negative statisticaleffects on trust in governmental bodies suchas the army and the judicial system. Thepaper argues that this stems from the type ofgroups that conduct civic education indemocratizing countries, many of which arenot politically or socially neutral. The paperconcludes with a discussion of these findingsfor theories of democracy and civil societyand for donor-supported civic educationprograms.

Hahn, Carole L. 1998. Becoming Political:Comparative Perspectives on CitizenshipEducation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Using a comparative perspective, BecomingPolitical describes alternative forms ofeducation for democracy and points toconsequences of various alternatives indiverse settings. This study of civiceducation and adolescent political attitudescontains rich descriptive information frominterviews with students and teachers andclassroom observations in England,Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and theUnited States. Such qualitative informationgathered over the past decade complementsfindings from surveys administered tostudents ages fifteen through nineteen infifty schools in the five countries.

Johnson, Mark S. September 1998.“Strengthening Russian Democracy ThroughCivic Education.” Washington, DC: NationalEndowment for Democracy.

This report examines the effectiveness ofvarious civic education activities in Russia.In its findings, the report concludes thatalthough difficult to discern at times, theprograms did have a positive impact onstrengthening Russian democracy.

Niemi, Richard G., and Jane Junn. 1998. CivicEducation: What Makes Students Learn. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

This book takes a look at what youth in theUnited States know about governments andpolitics and how they learn it. Based on themost extensive assessment of students’ civicknowledge to date, the authors find thatsecondary school civics courses significantlyenhance understanding of the workings ofdemocracy. The authors then offer specificsuggestions to improve civic teaching.

Soule, Suzanne. 2000. “Beyond Communism andWar: The Effect of Civic Education on the


Democratic Attitudes and Behavior of Bosnianand Herzegovinian Youth.” Report prepared forthe Center for Civic Education.

An empirical study was conducted todetermine how effective an internationalcivic education exchange program was increating and promoting attitudes and valuesthat aimed at strengthening support fordemocratic institutions and processesamong Bosnia and Herzegovina schoolchildren. This report provides evidence ofthe effectiveness of the program based on acomparison of those who participated in theprogram and those who did not. The resultsindicate that civic education favorablyaffects students’ political knowledge andparticipatory skills, as well as attitudes andcore values.

Spiro, Jody. 1998. Active Learning in Centraland Eastern Europe. Newton: EducationDevelopment Center, Inc.

The author uses the article to describe theimpact of civic education initiatives in post-communist classrooms and some of thechallenges and limitations faced.

Torney-Purta, Judith, Lehmann, Rainer, Oswald,Hans, and Schulz, Wolfram. (2001). Citizenshipand Education in Twenty-eight Countries: CivicKnowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen.Amsterdam: International Association for theEvaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).[[email protected]]

This volume reports the results of a1999 test of civic knowledge andsurvey of civic engagementconducted with 90,000 students in10 post-Communist countries, 2from Latin America, 13 fromWestern Europe, Australia, HongKong (SAR), and the United States.

Torney-Purta, Judith; John Schwille; and Jo-AnnAmadeo. 1999a. Civic Education Across

Countries: twenty-four national case studiesfrom the IEA Civic Education Project.Amsterdam: IEA and Washington, DC: NationalCouncil for the Social Studies.

The text explores what adolescents areexpected to know about democratic practicesand institutions, the ways in which societiesconvey a sense of national identity, andwhat young people are taught aboutdiversity and social cohesion. The authorsoutline expectations that democraticsocieties hold for the development ofpolitical knowledge, skills, and attitudesamong young people, and how a country’spolitical or economic situation influencenotions of citizenship and democracy.Country data is analyzed from Europe, Northand South America, Asia, and Australia.

Torney-Purta, Judith (1998). Evaluatingprograms designed to teach international contentand negotiation skills. InternationalNegotiation, 3, 77-97.

This article describes the steps forconducting an evaluation and then reportsresults from an evaluation of the ICONSComputer-Assisted International Simulation.Several assessment techniques are described:rating scales, open-ended questions scoredfor elaboration, concept maps, andcomputer-assisted data collection. Notesabout decisions made in the course ofplanning and implementing the evaluationare included.

USAID/Office of Democracy and Governance.forthcoming.A. Can Democracy Be Taught?Civic Education in Three Countries.Occasional Papers Series. Washington, DC:USAID.

This report endeavors to synthesize threecountry-level impact assessments of USAID-supported adult civic education initiatives inthe Dominican Republic, Poland, and SouthAfrica during the 1990s. The origins of thisexercise lie in the fact that, although civic


education has over the decade become amajor DG program component, we had littleidea of what impact these programs werehaving. The three country studies and thissynthesis report are intended to fill that gap.

USAID/Office of Democracy and Governance.forthcoming.B. Civic Education ProgrammingSince 1990: A Case Study-based Analysis.Occasional Papers Series. Washington, DC:USAID.

This report presents 10 case studies of civiceducation programs funded by USAID since1990. Introductory sections review USAID’sinvolvement in civic education, offer aframework for analyzing and classifyingprograms, summarize what USAID haslearned about the impact of programs, andsuggest guidelines for the future.

Villegas-Riemers, Eleonora. 1994. CivicEducation in the School Systems of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. Washington, DC:USAID, Bureau for Latin America and theCaribbean, Office of Development Resources,Education and Human Resources.

The report discusses the status of civiceducation, moral education, and educationfor democracy in primary and secondaryschool systems in Latin America andCaribbean (LAC), including a literaturereview and findings from a survey of theMinistries of Education in 15 LAC countries:Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, CostaRica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica,Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Peru.

Yudelman, Sally, and Lucy Conger. March 1997.The Paving Stones: An Evaluation of LatinAmerican Civic Education Programs.Washington, DC: National Endowment forDemocracy.

The authors examine the success of civiceducation programs in Latin America as

implemented by non-governmentalorganizations and community groups.

Useful Websites

Center for Civic Education: http://www.civiced.org

Specializes in civic and citizenshipeducation, law-related education, andinternational exchange programs ineducation in developing democracies. Thesite helps to promote these educationalgoals by providing links to curricularmaterials, articles, and papers on civiceducation, and internet resources.

Children’s Resources International: http://www.childrensresources.org

Provides curriculum guides, activity books,training and technical assistance, andcollege courses for teachers, administrators,regivers and parents to support qualityteaching practices around the world.

Civnet/Civitas: http://www.civnet.org

Includes many online manuals and curricula,as well as a calendar related to civiceducation worldwide.

Electronic Resource Centre for Human RightsEducation: http://erc.hrea.org

Includes hundreds of full-text curricula,lesson plans, textbooks, and trainingmanuals for education about and fordemocracy and human rights at K-12 leveland for community groups andprofessionals.

Global Information Networks in Education(GINIE): http://www.ginie.org

Provides a comprehensive resource centreon education for democracy and educationin emergency situations.

http://www.civiced.org

http://www.childrensresources.org

http://www.civnet.org

http://erc.hrea.org

http://www.ginie.org

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl


Improving Educational Quality Project: http://www.ieq.org

Holds many resources on instructionalmethods and lessons learned.

International Tolerance Network: http://www.tolerance.uni-muenchen.de

Contains on line newsletters, bibliographies,and databases about education fordemocracy, human rights and tolerance.

Orava civic education project: http://www.uni.edu/coe/orava

Displays information about the Orava civiceducation project in Slovakia.

Peru’s Virtual Parliament: http://www.congreso.gob.pe/parla/par-tele.htm

Includes a distance learning course on thefunctioning of parliament in Spanish.

USAID Center for Democracy and Governance:http://www.usaid.gov/democracy

Contains materials and links to educationand democracy and governance.

USAID Human Capacity Development Center:http://www.usaid.gov/educ_training

Includes description of worldwide initiativesand on line global education database.

http://www.ieq.org

http://www.tolerance.uni-muenchen.de

http://www.uni.edu/coe/orava

http://www.congreso.gob.pe/parla/par-tele.htm

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy

http://www.usaid.gov/educ_training

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

PN-ACP-335Alternative Dispute Resolution PractitionersGuide

PN-ACP-331Approaches to Civic Education: LessonsLearned

PN-ACP-336Case Tracking and Management Guide

PN-ACP-337Civil-military Relations: USAID’s Role

PN-ACP-338Conducting a DG Assessment: A Frameworkfor Strategy Development

PN-ACP-339Decentralization and Democratic LocalGovernance Programming Handbook

PN-ACR-210Democracy and Governance: A ConceptualFramework

PN-ACM-007Guidance for Promoting JudicialIndependence and Impartiality

PN-ACR-211Handbook of Democracy and GovernanceProgram Indicators

PN-ACR-212A Handbook on Fighting Corruption

PN-ACR-213Managing Assistance in Support of Political andElectoral Processes

PN-ACR-214The Role of Media in Democracy: A StrategicApproach

PN-ACR-215USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening

PN-ACR-216USAID Political Party Development Assistance

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS FROM THE OFFICE OF DEMOCRACY & GOVERNANCE(Click on title of publication to download .pdf version)

TO ORDER DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

• Please reference the document title and document identification number (listed above the document titles on thispage and on the cover of this publication).

• USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas may order docu-ments at no charge.

• Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countries may orderup to five titles at no charge.

• All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable, reproduc-tion and postage costs will be billed.

Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)E-mail orders to [email protected]

Enduser

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacp335.pdf






http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacr210.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacm007.pdf







PN-ACP-331

Office of Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, D.C. 20523-3100

Tel: (202) 712-1892Fax: (202) 216-3231

Internet: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/Intranet: http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/

http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/

Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned •...

Documents

Transcript of Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned •...