Toward a Cohesive Union? Currents and Cleavages in State Civic Education Policy Discourses

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ariel Tichnor-Wagner, Ejana Bennett, H. Parkhouse, Ana Schcolnik
{"title":"Toward a Cohesive Union? Currents and Cleavages in State Civic Education Policy Discourses","authors":"Ariel Tichnor-Wagner, Ejana Bennett, H. Parkhouse, Ana Schcolnik","doi":"10.1086/720541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Civic education in the United States has received renewed attention in state-level policy making. Yet defining what citizenship education entails has been long-contested terrain. This study explores the extent to which recently adopted civic education state policies are consistent in policy messaging around desired civic outcomes and civic debt. Research Methods/Approach: This study utilized political discourse analysis to analyze all civic education state policies enacted between 2017 and 2020, which included 45 laws from 29 states, through an iterative process of open and focused coding. Findings: The vast majority of policies espoused civic republican goals, with varying degrees to which they addressed civic debt. Liberal citizenship discourses were found in less than one-fourth of policies, and critical discourses were entirely absent. Patterns emerged in civic discourses by state political identity, geographic location, and whether civic debt was addressed. Implications: Findings suggest congruence across state law in stating that the rising generation of citizens should learn about the foundations and function of government, yet a continued disconnect between marginalized youths’ lived experiences of disenfranchisement and exclusion from the dominant narrative. The flood of state bills in 2021 seeking to limit the teaching of structural racism and the roots of inequalities seems to push back against “critical” policies that these findings show are not widespread. This calls for future research that examines whether these state-level trends continue amid ongoing battles over the teaching of civics and history in K–12 schools and how state-level civic discourses manifest in civics education policy classroom implementation.","PeriodicalId":47629,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Education","volume":"128 1","pages":"647 - 676"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720541","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Civic education in the United States has received renewed attention in state-level policy making. Yet defining what citizenship education entails has been long-contested terrain. This study explores the extent to which recently adopted civic education state policies are consistent in policy messaging around desired civic outcomes and civic debt. Research Methods/Approach: This study utilized political discourse analysis to analyze all civic education state policies enacted between 2017 and 2020, which included 45 laws from 29 states, through an iterative process of open and focused coding. Findings: The vast majority of policies espoused civic republican goals, with varying degrees to which they addressed civic debt. Liberal citizenship discourses were found in less than one-fourth of policies, and critical discourses were entirely absent. Patterns emerged in civic discourses by state political identity, geographic location, and whether civic debt was addressed. Implications: Findings suggest congruence across state law in stating that the rising generation of citizens should learn about the foundations and function of government, yet a continued disconnect between marginalized youths’ lived experiences of disenfranchisement and exclusion from the dominant narrative. The flood of state bills in 2021 seeking to limit the teaching of structural racism and the roots of inequalities seems to push back against “critical” policies that these findings show are not widespread. This calls for future research that examines whether these state-level trends continue amid ongoing battles over the teaching of civics and history in K–12 schools and how state-level civic discourses manifest in civics education policy classroom implementation.
走向凝聚力联盟?国家公民教育政策话语的流变与断裂
目的:美国的公民教育在州级政策制定中再次受到关注。然而,定义公民教育的内涵一直是一个长期存在争议的领域。这项研究探讨了最近通过的公民教育国家政策在多大程度上与期望的公民成果和公民债务的政策信息一致。研究方法/方法:本研究利用政治话语分析,通过开放和集中编码的迭代过程,分析了2017年至2020年间颁布的所有公民教育国家政策,其中包括来自29个州的45项法律。调查结果:绝大多数政策都支持公民共和的目标,在不同程度上解决了公民债务问题。在不到四分之一的政策中发现了自由公民话语,而批判话语则完全缺失。公民话语中出现了国家政治身份、地理位置以及公民债务是否得到解决的模式。影响:研究结果表明,各州法律一致认为,新一代公民应该了解政府的基础和职能,但边缘化青年被剥夺选举权和被排斥在主流叙事之外的生活经历之间仍然存在脱节。2021年,大量州法案试图限制结构性种族主义和不平等根源的教学,这似乎是对这些调查结果表明并不普遍的“关键”政策的抵制。这就需要未来的研究来检验这些州级趋势是否会在K-12学校公民学和历史教学的持续斗争中继续下去,以及州级公民话语如何在公民教育政策课堂实施中表现出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Education
American Journal of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Founded as School Review in 1893, the American Journal of Education acquired its present name in November 1979. The Journal seeks to bridge and integrate the intellectual, methodological, and substantive diversity of educational scholarship, and to encourage a vigorous dialogue between educational scholars and practitioners. To achieve that goal, papers are published that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信