IL‘

"I

9001

 

 

  

 
 

HmWNWIKHIHHNHUWHM

\

WIHWWU

am LIBRARY
~ Michigan State
\‘ ' University

$0029)

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Differences in the Importance of Conventional Citizenship by
Race, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status
Among 14-Year-Olds

presented by
Shanetta Latrise Martin

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Family Studies

 

 

valet/WY? (74//@ @6617

 

Major Professor’s Signature
5/MI/09”

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

_v—.—-—.--«-.‘A_—.A_.—A—.a-I-U-"

...--_-__..-...._ _.—.—.—-—

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05—czlc—I RC/Dat—oDuo_.indd-p—. 15 ‘

\ \.-.-

 

DIFFERENCES IN THE IMPORTANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CITIZENSHIP BY
RACE, GENDER, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
AMONG 14-YEAR-OLDS
BY

Shanetta Latrise Martin

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2005

..Ii|_FI .I \1

.3 1‘ \I’ r.

ABSTRACT
DIFFERENCES IN THE IMPORTANCE OF CONVENTIONAL CITIZENSHIP BY
RACE, GENDER, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
AMONG 14-YEAR OLDS
By
Shanetta Latrise Martin
This study compares differences by race, gender, and socioeconomic
status (SES) in the importance of conventional citizenship among African
American and White American 14 year olds in the US. This investigation utilizes
existing US. data from the IEA Civic Education study of nationally representative
samples of 14 year-olds from 28 countries collected in 1999. ANOVA and t-test
were used to analyze the conventional citizenship scale and individual citizenship
items from the IEA data. Hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance.
No racial differences were found on conventional citizenship. Gender
differences were found. Particularly, low SES girls, defined as having a “low
number of books in the home” and “low educational aspirations,” value

conventional citizenship more than low SES boys. No gender differences within

racial groups were found.

Copyright by
SHANETTA LATRISE MARTIN
2005

ln Dedication to my Mother and the Village that Raised Me

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to extend many thanks to my graduate
committee for their support, encouragement, and patience during this process. I
specifically thank Dr. Harriette McAdoo for her confidence that I would make it
through this process and for her gentle guidance each step of the way. I would
like to thank Dr. Robert Griffore for upholding me to the highest standards and for
bearing with me, along with the rest of my committee, through my special
circumstances that caused me to be away from campus for most of the time
during the thesis writing stage. I would also like to thank Dr. Carl Taylor for
inspiring me to undertake the graduate program in family studies and for
supporting me through my transition into the program. Last but not least, I would
like to thank Dr. Judith Torney-Purta, professor at the University of Maryland and
chair of the IEA Civic Education steering committee, for her invaluable assistance
throughout this process. I especially thank her for welcoming me into the fold of
her research team, for sharing resources related to the study, and for providing
the structure for me to develop my research skills.

I am very proud to have earned a degree from the Department of Family
and Child Ecology within the College of Human Ecology at Michigan State
University. With my interest in positive youth development and public policy, the
foundation of the human ecological perspective has had particular utility for me in
understanding the role of the family as well as the larger community, including

policymakers, in shaping young people’s development.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 3

Human Ecological Theory ............................................................... 3
Microsystem ....................................................................... 4

Mesosystem ....................................................................... 4

Exosystem ......................................................................... 5
Macrosystem ...................................................................... 8

Conventional Citizenship ................................................................ 8
Definitions .......................................................................... 8

Research Findings ............................................................... 9

Summary ........................................................................ 14

Engaging Marginalized Communities ............................................... 15

Theoretical Perspectives ...................................................... 1 5

Research Findings ............................................................. 18

Summary and Gaps in the Research ...................................... 19

RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................... 21
Dependent Variable ..................................................................... 21

Independent Variables .................................................................. 22
Subjects .................................................................................... 24
Hypotheses ............................................................................... 24
Procedure ................................................................................. 26
RESULTS .......................................................................................... 27
Conventional Citizenship Scale ...................................................... 27
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 35
Gender Differences ...................................................................... 35
Differences on Other Conventional Citizenship Items .......................... 36
Implications ................................................................................ 38
Limitations ................................................................................. 38
Suggestions for Further Research ................................................... 39

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tables ..................................................................... 41
Appendix B: Background - IEA Civic Education Study ........................ 44
Appendix C: References ............................................................... 48

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Mean differences and standard deviations on conventional
citizenship by race ................................................................... 27
Table 2: Mean differences and standard deviations on conventional citizenship
by gender ................................................................................ 28
Table 3: Mean differences and standard deviations on conventional citizenship
by SES ................................................................................... 28
Table 4: Means and standard deviations for gender differences within different
SES groups on conventional citizenship ........................................ 29
Table 5: Means and standard deviations for gender differences within different
racial groups on conventional citizenship ....................................... 31
Table 6: Means and standard deviations for gender differences within different
SES groups by race on conventional citizenship .............................. 32
Table 7: Mean ranking and standard deviations on all citizenship items by
race ....................................................................................... 33
Table 8: Top three mean differences for all citizenship items by race .............. 34
Table 9: Means and standard deviations on all citizenship items by race, gender

and SES ................................................................................. 42

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Youth Ecological Structure (micro-, meso-, and exosystems) ............ 7

Figure 2: Gender difference within different SES groups on conventional

citizenship ............................................................................ 3O

viii

Introduction
Scope of the Problem

While voting in the 2004 presidential election increased among young
people between the ages of 18-25, voting trends from 1972 to 2000 showed a
steady decline in political participation among this age group with only 42 percent
participating in voting in 2000 (Levine and Lopez, 2002). This percentage is fairly
low when compared to the 70 percent voting rate among citizens age 25 and
older. Youth voting rates are important but only represent one aspect of political
participation. Relatively little is known about how young people view other forms
of political participation as most youth civic engagement research has focused on
volunteerism and voting. An informed and engaged citizenry is important to hold
policymakers accountable and to help shape sound policies that are in tune to
the needs of the people. Too often young people’s voices are missing from policy
debates, yet they are affected by deficit-oriented policies that focus too heavily
on preventing youth problems rather than promoting the healthy development
and well-being of young people (Benson et al, 2004, p. 785; Pittman, 2003).

The evidence base has grown over the last several years to make the
case for what young people need to ensure they are doing well by achieving
specific developmental outcomes (Gambone et al, 2002; lrby et al, 2001;
National Research Council, 2002). Participation in decision-making about their
lives in the early teens, particularly in the home setting, has been shown to
increase good developmental outcomes later in life (Gambone et al, 2002, p.37).

To maximize the development of young people, researchers have called for

settings where young people spend their time to increase the personal and social
assets of young people by providing appropriate supports and opportunities for
them (Pittman, 2003; Benson, et al, 2004; National Research Council, 2002).
Empowerment is one such asset where youth are valued in communities and are
viewed as resources through the provision of meaningful roles (Benson et al,
2004). As young people grow in their civic identities, increasing opportunities for
empowering youth by supporting their engagement in decision-making on issues
that affect their lives could lead to a positive affect on their attitudes towards
political participation (Youniss et al, 1997).

This study compares differences by race, gender, and socioeconomic,
status (SES) in the importance of conventional citizenship among African
American and White American 14 year olds in the US. For this investigation, this
study utilizes existing US. data from the IEA Civic Education study of nationally
representative samples of 14 year-olds from 28 countries collected in 1999.

Topics in this research include a human ecological perspective to youth
involvement in civic life, youth attitudes toward adult conventional citizenship
behaviors; and civic participation in marginalized communities from a social
justice perspective. This study is an exploratory study that will hopefully provide
insights into how much young people value conventional citizenship; what
differences exist between racial, gender, and socioeconomic groups; and options
to incorporate youth voices into policymaking. The central question guiding this

study is how do youth view good adult citizenship behaviors.

Literature Review

Research discussed in this review include quantitative and qualitative
studies on youth attitudes toward political participation and also includes
contemporary perspectives from a growing body of literature offering theoretical
frameworks on strategies for civic engagement in marginalized communities.
Scholarly disciplines that inform this review include social and community
psychology, education, political science, and sociology.

The review is organized in four sections. First, the review begins with an
overview of the human ecological perspective, which is the theoretical lens for
the current study. Second, the definition of conventional citizenship is provided
and is followed by a review of several empirical studies that explore youth
attitudes toward this concept. Next, several theoretical frames and empirical
studies that address political participation in marginalized communities are
reviewed. The final section concludes with a summary of existing gaps in the
literature and is followed by research questions that guide the current study.
Human Ecological Theory

From a human ecological perspective, the basic theoretical question is
“how does the particular combination of environmental and personal
characteristics defining a particular ecological niche operate to influence human
development” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 194)? Bronfenbrenner’s nested model
addresses this theoretical question by providing a framework in which to
understand development in context. The nested model ranges from the

microsystem that contextualizes the conditions and interactions experienced by

the developing person in a single setting, to the mesosystem that contextualizes
the conditions and interactions experienced by the developing person in multiple
settings, to the exosystem that contextualizes the influence on the developing
person of settings that do not contain them, and the macrosystem that
contextualizes the influence of prevailing values or patterns in society on the
developing person.

Micmsystem. The nested model begins with the microsystem at the inner
most core, which describes the “pattern of activities, roles and interpersonal
relationships experienced by the developing person in a given face to face
setting” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 227). Elements of the microsystem include
physical and material features as well as other persons. An example of a
microsystem for an adolescent is the home environment where face to face
interactions take place with other family members in the physical environment in
which they live. According to Bronfenbrenner, the developing person assigns
meaning to those experiences and are shaped developmentally by the roles they
play, their perceptions of their interpersonal relationships and the activities in
which they are involved within a single setting (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, pp. 22-25).

Mesosystem. Up one level is the mesosystem, which comprises the
“linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings containing
the developing person” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 227). According to
Bronfenbrenner, the mesosystem is a system of microsystems. Bronfenbrenner
(1979) suggest that development is enhanced as a direct function of the number

of structurally different settings that are linked by the developing person as an

active participant and potentially encourages the growth of trust, positive
orientation, goal consensus between settings, and an evolving balance of power
in favor of the developing person (p. 212). The community is an example of a
mesosystem (see Figure 1). The community is comprised of multiple settings that
are linked by the developing person that participates in those settings. For young
people, the community includes places where they spend significant amounts of
time (e.g., schools, neighborhoods, the home, recreation centers, churches, etc).
The interconnections between these settings not only play a role in shaping
developmental outcomes for young people but also in influencing attitudes and
beliefs of young people as they navigate the boundaries between settings within
the mesosystem.

Exosystem. Up two levels is the exosystem, which is the region in the
environment under concern for this study. The exosystem is defined by the
“linkages of two or more settings, at least one of which does nOt contain the
developing person” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p.227). According to Bronfenbrenner,
events occur in the exosystem, typically in formal and informal power settings,
that influences the processes in a person’s immediate setting. Applicable to both
the mesosystem and exosystem, Bronfenbrenner ( 1979) says the following about
power settings and their affect on developing persons:

The developmental potential of a setting is enhanced to the extent that
there exist direct and indirect links to power settings through which

participants in the original setting can influence the allocation of resources

and the making of decisions that are responsive to the needs of the

developing person and the efforts of those who act in his behalf. (p.256)

Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasizes the importance of connecting the
immediate settings of the developing person to power settings. The effectiveness
of the exosystem to promote development depends on opportunity for developing
persons or those who act on their behalf to enter that system and their position of
influence once in that system (pp. 255-256). Ideally, the developing person or
those acting on his behalf would be positioned to define the situation and their
experiences for themselves, to articulate their needs and for those with decision-
making power to be responsive to those needs.

The exosystem is the locus of this study because it contains decision-
making structures or power settings that young people, particularly those that are
marginalized, are affected by but not necessarily connected to (see figure 1). The
ecological structure varies for each individual. For example, diSconnected youth,
defined as either unemployed or not in school, may not be connected at all to any
of the systems within the mesosystem. In regards to power settings, youth
voices are often missing from the policymaking process (e.g., policy decisions at
the federal, state, county and city levels, etc.) because there are often no
avenues to facilitate their participation in governance structures. Similarly in
communities, beyond community service, there are often few opportunities for
young people to be directly involved in decision-making. Oftentimes, young
people have limited access to decision-making structures in communities such as

school boards, city councils, county commissions, etc.

   
 

 

 

   
 

Community (mesosystem)

UNDER-
GROUNDI
WORLD

  
  

PROGRAMS
AND
SERVICES

  

NATURE/
PARKS

NEIGHBOR
-HOOD
AND REC

 

  

Figure 1: Youth Ecological Structure (micro-, meso—, and exosystems) ©

   

  

  
  
 
   

 

Macrosystem. At the outer most core is the macrosystem, which is defined
as consisting of the “overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems
characteristic of a given culture, subculture, or other broader social context that
are related to the developmentally-investigative belief systems, resources, or
hazards, life styles, opportunity structures, life course options, and patterns of
social interchange that are embedded in each of these systems”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 228). Each generation experiences a different social
context, social values and belief systems. The decline in civic participation as a
social value has been noted in recent years with particular concern over the
disengagement of young people in political life.

In summary, the nested model provides a framework in which to study
development in context. The exosystem is of particular interest for studying the
connection of young people to that system since they are not typically active
participants in decision—making structures.

Conventional Citizenship

Definitions. Articles reviewed in this study define citizenship as
conventional forms of civic participation such as voting, engaging in political
discussions, political awareness, etc (Torney—Purta & Amadeo, 2004; Torney-
Purta & Amadeo, 2003; Hahn, 1996; Conover and Searing, 2000). The broad
definition of citizenship could be defined as developing an awareness of self in

relation to others in the immediate setting (microsystem), then making a

connection between that setting and the larger community (mesosystem) and
connecting that context to political structures (exosystem) where citizens act
either as a collective or as individuals to inform and influence decisions of
policymakers that could result in policies to improve the quality of life at the
community level and/or to change the “social blueprint” or overarching values
and patterns of society (macrosystem). This is reflected in citizens being actively
engaged in either traditional or nontraditional forms of civic participation. Several
studies have investigated young people’s concept of the “good citizen”, whether
or not they value conventional forms of civic participation, and their view of what
makes a responsible citizen.

Research Findings. Hahn (1996) did a case study of two civics classes to
study gender differences based on five questions related to political attitudes and
behaviors among ninth graders. This study built on a larger study of students
(n=1,156) enrolled in a one-semester civics course in a large suburban school
system in the southeastern United States that completed a questionnaire
containing a classroom climate scale. (Hahn, 1996, p. 30) Hahn selected from
one of the high schools that participated in the study two ninth-grade civics
classes taught by different teachers whose classroom climate differed in degrees
of Openness. (Hahn, 1996, p.15) Hahn used quantitative data to investigate if
there were gender differences in political attitudes of interest, efficacy,
confidence and trust and if there were gender differences in political behaviors of
media use, participation in political discussions and reports of intended future

political participation. To answer those questions, Hahn compared 164 male and

female responses on an administered questionnaire that contained scales used
in political socialization research to measure students’ political attitudes and
behaviors. Quantitative data was also used to find out whether or not students
supported women holding political office. This variable was measured using the
support for women’s scale in the questionnaire. (Hahn, 1996, p.16)

Additionally, Hahn used qualitative data to explore the treatment of gender
as a curricular topic in civic courses and to explore if male and female students
enrolled in civics classes perceive the political world differently. To investigate
the treatment of gender as a curricular topic, Hahn observed one civics class of
each teacher once or twice per week over a 16 week semester. To investigate
students’ perceptions of the political world, Hahn interviewed 22 of 23 students
for one class (12 males and 10 females) and 14 of 33 students in the other civics
course (8 males, 6 females). Students were asked to talk about their civics
class, and about government, politics, politicians, and their interest in current
events. Students were also sometimes asked about their after-school lives and
future plans. (Hahn, 1996, p. 16)

Of particular relevance to this study are Hahn’s findings on political
attitudes of interest, efficacy, confidence and trust; political behaviors of media
use, participation in political discussion, and reports of intended future political
participation; and students perceptions of the political world. Hahn found no
significant gender differences among students on political attitudes and
behaviors as measured in the study. On measures of conventional citizenship

(i.e. media use, participation in political discussion, and reports of intended future

10

political participation), Hahn’s qualitative findings upheld the lack of gender
differences found in the quantitative analysis. Subjects in Hahn’s study defined
good citizens as “good neighbors, people who help one another, giving money to
help the homeless, and keeping up with current events.” (Hahn, 1996, p. 20)
Voting was also viewed as important by students.

Hahn concluded that both males and females have low levels of trust and
negative views toward politics and politicians but may differ in their perceptions of
political issues. Females in the study showed more interest in social issues. In
contrast, males were more interested in national and international issues. Hahn
(1996) also concluded that males and females with a high degree of political
interest shared several characteristics: “They are regular consumers of news,
they often talk about current events, and many had been involved in school or
local politics” (pp. 26-27). Hahn (1996) suggested that those outside influences
were as important as classroom factors in affecting the attitudes and behaviors of
youth with a high degree of political interest (p. 27).

Cooks and Epstein (2000) qualitative study explored the concept of
citizenship among African American youth in a low-income school district on
West coast. Fourteen students were selected from a pool of 60 eighth grade
students that participated in a summer writing program. Data was collected in the
form of written assignments completed by the subjects that focused on the
following four sets of questions: “1. What is a good citizen? 2.) Do you have a
responsibility to the nation? Does the nation have a responsibility to you? 3. Do

you have a responsibility to the African American community? Does the African

11

American community have a responsibility to you? 4. Is everyone treated equally
in America?” (Cooks and Epstein, 2000, p. 13). Oral interviews were conducted
with the subjects in follow up to written assignments that further explored young
people’s ideas about citizenship (Cooks and Epstein, 2000, p. 13).

Cooks and Epstein’s findings revealed that African American students “did
not equate citizenship with neither national loyalty nor political participation”.
(Cooks and Epstein, 2000, p.14) In fact, according to the researchers, the
second and third questions about personal and social citizenship responsibilities
yielded the fewest responses while the question about equality in America
yielded the greatest number of responses. African American students in the
study identified racism, white privilege, and discriminatory acts as evidence of
unequal treatment of particular groups in America. Students also acknowledged
their awareness of the unfavorable social, political and economic conditions of
African Americans as signs of inequality (Cooks and Epstein, 2000, p. 13).

Similar to Hahn’s study, Cooks and Epstein’s subjects defined the “good
citizen” as “obeying the law, returning or “giving back” to the community, getting a
good job, and respecting other people. (Cooks and Epstein, 2000, p.14) Most of
the subjects in Cooks and Epstein’s study felt they had a responsibility to the
nation. However, their conceptualization of their responsibility had less to do with
conventional forms of political participation and more to do with personal and
community responsibilities such as keeping themselves safe, avoiding conflict,
upholding family obligations, staying in school, and becoming employed. (Cooks

and Epstein, 2000, p. 15)

12

Cooks and Epstein (2000) concluded that the term “citizenship” was
interpreted by African American students as meaning personal development and
commitment to their neighborhoods and the larger African American community
(pp.15-16). They also noted that although African American students were
cynical in their attitudes toward traditional forms of political participation, they
expressed a sense of personal agency particularly in terms of their commitment
to high achievement as a way to give back to their community (p.16).

Wlth the exception of voting in Hahn’s study, young people did not identify
conventional forms of political participation as part of their definition of a good
citizen in either study. In both studies, young people’s concepts of citizenship are
confined to the neighborhood and community level having more to do with
adhering to social rules and helping other people versus being involved in
decision-making. Limited measures of citizenship in Cooks and Epstein’s study
may have resulted in the narrow responses from their subjects. The questions
posed to their subjects lacked depth that could have elicited more cogent
responses to help reveal students concept of citizenship. Race and gender were
not simultaneously considered in the analysis of either study.

Conover and Searing’s (2000) qualitative study of students concept of
citizenship (n=100) across four communities (e.g., suburban, rural, urban and
immigrant) revealed that over half identified having rights and duties as part of
their basic definition of citizenship. (p. 100) Over three-quarters of students
identified voting in elections and patriotic acts (e.g., loyalty to the country, respect

for the flag, and military service) as central to the practice of citizenship when

13

asked to sort thirty-six kinds of citizen behaviors into four categories (e.g.,
political, communal, social and patriotic). With the exception of voting, a little over
a third of the students across communities felt that staying informed, participating
actively in politics and in public discussions was central to the practice of
citizenship. (Conover and Searing, 2000, p.103) Consistent with the findings from
the aforementioned studies, Conover and Searing (2000) found that young
people identified obeying the law and minimum participation in their school and
community as their idea of the “good citizen” (p.104). They also found that
students had difficulty describing what they might do as adults as far as
citizenship behaviors. (Conover and Searing, 2000, p. 104) The analysis did not
include gender differences. Hispanic youth represented in the immigrant
community were the only ethnic group focused on in the analysis.

Conover and Searing concluded that students have limited concepts of
themselves as future citizens. Of particular concern was the lack of vision among
the students of their “possible selves” as citizens, which the researchers felt were
essential to motivate students to become active citizens and to guide personal
change (Conover and Searing, 2000, 104). For urban youth, Conover and
Searing suggested that the personal experiences along with the historical and
sociocultural context were important in cultivating a vision of what they could be
as future citizens.

Summary. The literature previously discussed show that young people in
the past five to 10 years consistently demonstrate limited concepts of themselves

as future citizens and that traditional forms of political participation is of little

I4

importance to them. In all of the studies previously discussed, young people’s
concept of citizenship was defined in passive and reactive ways rather than with
purpose that would lead to a more proactive orientation to political participation.
The literature also showed that urban youth, particularly low-income African
American youth, tend to hold more cynical attitudes toward political participation
yet demonstrate a sense of agency which appears to be directly linked to their
experiences as a marginalized group.

Engaging Marginalized Communities

Theoretical Perspectives. A recent trend in research on civic engagement
in marginalized communities is found in research related to social justice forms of
civic participation. Community psychology, social psychology, sociology, and a
few research-based civic groups provide conceptual frameworks on the
sociopolitical development of marginalized youth and young people of color.
Common themes among them include a strong social justice orientation, activism
in response to oppression for disenfranchised groups, critical awareness of social
inequality, identity development, and youth empowerment. Most of these theories
purport that marginalized youth are more effectively engaged with activities that
include social justice forms of civic participation.

Emerging theories in community psychology offer broad frameworks that
focus on expanding civic engagement opportunities to include pathways for youth
to develop critical awareness skills that results in collective action in promotion of
a just and equitable society. Prilleltensky and Fox (2003) assert that wellness

and justice are linked and are central to the good society. They suggest that

IS

wellness is achieved when there is balance and satisfaction of personal,
relational and collective needs of developing persons. The balance in meeting
those needs hinges on whether or not justice is achieved in each of those
domains (Prilleltensky and Fox, 2003, p.17). According to the researchers, the
challenge in achieving that balance has to do with a number of cultural distortions
that undermine personal wellness and impede justice. To counteract this,
psychopolitical literacy is suggested as a way to engage individuals, groups and
communities in understanding the impact of injustice on their lives and to be
agents of change (Prilleltensky and Fox, 2003, p.11).

Similarly, Watts and Flanagan (in press) offer a theoretical perspective
that acknowledges structural barriers to youth participation in creating change in
their communities and calls for the expansion of the concept of good citizenship
beyond traditional community service and conventional forms of civic
participation to include sociopolitical activism ( p. 23). Regarding structural
barriers, particular attention was called to the mediation role that community
institutions play between individuals and the state. They suggest that while
community institutions empower some young people they may contribute to the
oppression of others (Watts and Flanagan, in press, p. 5). That study builds on
Watts’ Sociopolitical Development (SPD) theory that integrates a liberation
perspective into psychology.

Grounded in African American culture and liberation traditions, SPD has a
strong activist orientation in that it is a process whereby oppressed groups

develop a critical awareness of social inequity and acquire the analytic skills to

16

understand their experiences in a socio-historical context along with the capacity
to move toward collective action to create a more just society (Watts et al, 2003).
Watts (2003) suggest that “empowering attitudes give emerging activist the drive
to act as well as sense of agency needed to create or make beneficial change in
social systems.” (p. 5)

The previously mentioned theories all suggest that social justice-oriented
citizenship connects particularly well with marginalized populations and should
be accepted as a legitimate form of civic participation. Social justice-oriented
citizenship is viewed as a way to effectively engage marginalized and oppressed
communities and to facilitate their participation in power settings (exosystem) that
could result in addressing root causes of issues they face and help bring about a
more just and equitable society. Both theories also suggest that marginalized
youth should understand the context in which they live by raising their critical
awareness and should also understand their roles as agents of change.

In line with the social justice tradition, youth organizing has emerged as an
alternative strategy to engage marginalized youth. Researchers in the youth
organizing community do not view conventional forms of political participation as
the most effective way to engage marginalized youth. Sullivan et al (2000),
suggest a five stage continuum of youth engagement where youth organizing
takes traditional youth engagement strategies (eg. intervention services, youth
development, youth leadership, etc.) a step further by engaging youth in direct
action and political mobilizing to create systemic change. Sullivan et al, purports

“for marginalized youth, who are most isolated and frequently discriminated

17

against, youth organizing has particular utility.” (p. 9) In sociology, Ginwrights’
(2002) Social Justice Youth Development theory purports that a more equitable
society can be built through engaging young people of color based on the
following principals: analyzing power within social relationships, making identity
central, promoting systemic change, encouraging collective action, and
embracing youth culture. (p. 36-37)

Sullivan and Ginwright’s theoretical perspectives suggest that traditional
youth engagement strategies often fail to help marginalized youth address the
root causes of challenges faced in their communities. Opportunities for
marginalized youth that include critical analysis to affect change in the broader
society by taking action and holding political systems accountability are viewed
as more effective. All four theories mentioned here argue to help young people of
color and other marginalized youth move into power settings by expanding
strategies and opportunities for engagement in civic life. '

Research Findings. In a rare study of supports and opportunities for
diverse youth from a developmental perspective, Gambone’s (2004) survey
research of 257 participants examined differences in outcomes for young people
between youth organizing, identify-support and traditional youth development
programs. (p. 2) Gambone et al, (2004) found that youth organizing and identity
support agencies have “significantly higher proportions of diverse youth
demonstrating optimal levels of civic activism outcomes (e.g., civic action,
efficacy, and capacity for community problem solving) than do traditional youth

development agencies.” (p. 8) For youth organizing, Gambone et al, also found

18

significant differences on all three measures of youth involvement - decision
making, youth leadership, and belonging (p. 11). To increase opportunities for
meaningful community involvement, Gambone et al concluded that marginalized
youth in particular are more engaged when given the opportunity to take direct
action in community change work. These finding support Ginwright and Sullivan’s
theories that marginalized youth respond well to activism oriented programs and
activities. In addition, Gambone et al concluded that developmental outcomes
may be enhanced when youth experience the proper supports and opportunities
for meaningful involvement.

Summary and Gaps in the Research. Few quantitative studies exist that
focus on differences by race and gender in young people's concepts of
citizenship. While several theories have emerged on the sociopolitical
development of marginalized youth, few quantitative studies exist that explore the
attitudes of African American youth toward activism and other forms of political
participation. In addition, most studies that focus on concepts of citizenship
among African American youth are heavy on theory and use narrow measures of
civic participation. This study builds on prior research and explores the idea of
the “good citizen” by examining the importance of conventional forms of civic
participation among adolescents and compares differences for the first time by
race, gender and SES. The following research questions were investigated:

1. Are there racial differences on conventional citizenship?
2. Are there gender differences on conventional citizenship?

3. Are there differences between SES groups on conventional citizenship?

l9

4. Are there gender differences of similar magnitude within different SES
groups on conventional citizenship?

5. Are there gender differences of similar magnitude within different racial
groups on conventional citizenship?

6. Do views on conventional citizenship by gender and SES vary as a

function of race?

20

Research Design

From an ecological perspective, variables selected for this study will
explore the “active orientation toward and interaction with'the environment,”
particularly what Bronfenbrenner (1989) calls the “disposition to manipulate,
select, elaborate, reconstruct, and even to create environments for self and
others and a concept of the self as an active agent in a responsive world” (p.
219). Conceptual and operational definitions for the independent and dependent
variables are as follow:
Variables

Dependent Van'able. Conventional Citizenship is the dependent variable.
Conceptually, conventional citizenship refers to political activities young people
feel is important to participate in as an adult (Torney—Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, &
Schulz, 2001). Operationally, the following questions related to citizenship
responsibilities will be used to measure the importance of conventional
citizenship which will be interpreted as “valuing” these behaviors:
An adult who is a good citizen...

. votes in every election

joins a political party

. knows about the country’s history

. follows political issues in the newspaper, radio or TV
. shows respect for government representatives

- engages in political discussions

21

Operationally the importance of conventional citizenship will be measured at

the ordinal level using the following scale:

0 = “don’t know” (counted as missing data)

1 = “strongly disagree”

2 = “disagree”

3 = “agree”

4 = “strongly agree”
The IEA Study team conducted Confirrnatory Factor analysis and then
constructed IRT scales with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 2 (T omey-
Purta, 2001). The IRT scale for Conventional Citizenship is used in this analysis.
See Appendix B for more background information on the IEA Civic Education
Study.

Independent Variables. There are three independent variables in this study.
The first is race which is defined as African American youth and White American
youth. The second independent variable is gender meaning girls and boys. Race
and gender are both measured at the nominal level.

The third independent variable is socioeconomic status (SES). Conceptually,
SES refers to the home environment and educational resources (Torney-Purta,
Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001). Earlier IEA studies have shown that
“substantial home literacy resources” and “expected future education” are strong
influences on civic knowledge and on some aspects of attitudes or values (Baldi,

et al, 2001). Operationally, SES will be based on a composite of the “number of

22

books in the home” and “educational aspirations” and was measured at the
ordinal level by the following survey questions:
0 About how many books are there in your home? Do not count

newspapers, magazines or books for school; check one box only.

Scale:

None ............... [ ]1
1-10 ............... H2
11 — 50 ............. [ ]3
51 - 100 ............ [ ]4
101 — 200 ......... []5

More than 200....[16
o How many years of further education do you expect to complete after this

year? Please include vocational education and/or higher education. Check

one box only.

Scale:

0 years .................. I ]1
1 or 2 years ............. [ ]2
3 or 4 years ............. [13
5 or 6 years ............. [ ]4
7 or 8 years ............. [15
9 or 10 years ............ [ ]6

More than 10 years....[ ]7

23

Subjects. A secondary data analysis was done on data from the IEA Civic
Education study. The sample population of black and white students was
randomly selected from the data pool. Out of 2,811 subjects in the original study,
the number of Black subjects is relatively small with roughly 600 students
identifying as black as part of their racial identity (Torney—Purta, Lehmann,
Oswald, & Schulz, 2001; Baldi et al, 2001). To obtain a comparable sample of
black and white students, all subjects identifying as Black only and a random
sample of white subjects selected to match the proportions of SES in the Black
sample was used. Categories for SES include: 1.) LOW: Low number of books
and low educational aspirations. 2.) MEDIUM: low number of books OR low
educational aspirations 3.) HIGH: high number of books and high educational
aspirations (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001). The sample
population consisted of 476 Black students and 476 white students for a total of
952 comprising the sample size. Of the 952 that reported their gender, the
sample size included 471 boys and 468 girls. The sample did not include those
who self-identified as more than one ethnicity or race (e.g. both Black and White
or both White and Hispanic).

Hypotheses. The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:
H1 There are no significant differences in attitudes toward conventional
citizenship between African American and White American youth.
H2 There are significant differences in how African American youth value

conventional citizenship in comparison to White American youth.

24

H3 There are no significant differences in attitudes toward conventional
citizenship between boys and girls.

H4 There are significant differences in attitudes toward conventional
citizenship between boys and girls.

H5 There are no significant differences in attitudes toward conventional
citizenship between low, medium and high SES groups.

H5 There are significant differences in attitudes toward conventional
citizenship between low, medium and high SES groups.

H7 There are no significant differences in the magnitude of gender differences
within different SES groups on conventional citizenship.

H8 Gender differences on conventional citizenship are larger within at least
one SES group than in the others.

H9 There are no significant differences in the magnitude of gender differences
within racial groups on conventional citizenship. I

H10 Gender differences on conventional citizenship are larger within one of the
racial groups.

H11 There are no significant differences on conventional citizenship in the
magnitude of racial differences within gender and SES groups.

H12 There are significant differences on conventional citizenship in the
magnitude of racial differences within gender and SES groups.

A p < .05, two tailed test was used to reject the null hypothesis and accept the

working hypothesis.

25

Procedure. Analysis of Variance was used to assess whether or not there
were significant differences on the basis of race, gender, and SES on the
importance of conventional citizenship of youth. A level of significance at the .05
level was used. Seven groups were compared — race (white and black), gender
(girls and boys) and SES (3 categories based on the number of books in the

home and educational aspirations). The Cronbach reliability coefficient is .67 for

the conventional citizenship scale.

26

Results

Conventional Citizenship Scale. In this study, young people were asked
about their idea of “the good citizen” where conventional citizenship is defined as
adult political behaviors (see Appendix A for source table). ANOVA was used to
test racial differences on conventional citizenship (see Table 1). The null
hypothesis that there are no significant differences on conventional citizenship
between African American youth and White American youth was accepted (F(1,
934) = .256, p > .05). Therefore, the alternative hypothesis that significant
differences would be found between African American youth and White American

youth on conventional citizenship was rejected.

Table 1: Mean differences and standard deviations on conventional citizenship by race (N = 936)

 

Conventional Citizenship

 

 

Race Mean Standard Deviation Alpha Cohen’s d
African American 10.45 2.35 .613 n.s.
White American 10.18 2.44

 

Second, ANOVA was used to test gender differences on conventional
citizenship (see Table 2). The alternative hypothesis that there are significant
differences between gender groups was accepted with girls scoring higher on
conventional citizenship than boys (F(1, 922) = 7.78, p < .05). Therefore, the null
hypothesis that there are no significant differences on conventional citizenship

was rejected.

27

Table 2: Mean differences and standard deviations on conventional citizenship by gender (N =
924)

 

Conventional Citizenship

 

 

Gender Mean Standard Deviation Alpha Cohen’s d
Girls 10.62 2.39 .005 .2
Boys 10.18 2.40

 

Third, ANOVA was used to test differences between different SES groups
on conventional citizenship (see Table 3). The null hypothesis that there are no
significant differences between low, medium, and high SES groups was accepted
(F(2, 910) = .750, p > .05). Therefore, the alternative hypothesis that there are

significant differences between low, medium, and high SES groups was rejected.

Table 3: Mean differences and standard deviations on conventional citizenship by SES (N = 913)

 

Conventional Citizenship

 

SES Mean Standard Deviation Alpha Cohen’s d

 

Low books and low 10.43 2.59 .473 n.s.
educaflonalaspfiafions

low books OR low 10.48 2.24
educafionalaspfiafions

high books and high 10.22 2.41
educafionalaspfiafions

 

Fourth, Univariate Factorial Analysis was used to test gender differences
within different SES groups (see Table 4). The alternative hypothesis that there
are significant differences in the magnitude of gender differences within at least

one SES group was accepted (F(2, 905) = 3.35, p < .05). Gender differences on

28

conventional citizenship are larger within low SES youth than medium or high

SES youth with low SES girls scoring higher than low SES boys (see Figure 2)..

Therefore, the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the

magnitude of gender differences within racial groups was rejected. It would follow

that the significant main effect for gender previously noted in Table 2 is due

almost entirely to the result of the lower scores of boys in the low SES group

Table 4: Means and standard deviations for gender differences within different SES groups on
conventional citizenship (N = 911)

 

Conventional Citizenship

 

 

SES by Gender Mean Standard Deviation Alpha Cohen's d
Low books and low
educational aspirations
Girls 10.93 2.64 .036 .007
Boys 9.96 2.47
low books OR low
educational aspirations
Girls 10.55 2.22
Boys 10. 39 2.27
high books and high
educational aspirations
Girls 10.24 2.25
Boys 10.20 2.58

 

29

 

Student Gender
----- Male
— Female

11.00-

10.80-

10.60-

10.40-

 

10201 / ‘~

10.00_ I’

Mean Conventional Citizenship Score

9.80-

 

 

 

I IF I
low books and low books OR high books and
low ed. low ed. high ed.
aspirations aspirations aspiratiosn
Books in the home/Educational Aspirations
composite

Figure 2: Gender difference within different SES groups on conventional citizenship

30

Fifth, Univariate Factorial Analysis was used to test gender differences
within racial groups (see Table 5). The null hypothesis that there are no
significant differences in the magnitude of gender differences within racial groups
was accepted (F(1, 920) = .123, p > .05). Therefore, the alternative hypothesis
that there are significant differences in the magnitude of gender differences

within racial groups was rejected.

Table 5: Means and standard deviations for gender differences within different racial groups on
conventional citizenship (N = 924)

 

Conventional Citizenship

 

 

Race by Gender Mean Standard Deviation Alpha Cohen's d
African American
Girls 10.68 2.44 .726 n.s.
Boys 1 0.1 9 2 .25
White American
Girls 10.56 2.34

Boys 10.18 2.54

 

Sixth, Univariate Factorial Analysis was used to test a 3-way interaction of
gender, race and SES groups (see Table 6). The null hypothesis that there are
no significant differences on conventional citizenship in the magnitude of racial
differences within gender and SES groups was accepted (F(2, 911) = 1.25, p >
.05). Therefore, the alternative hypothesis that there are significant differences
on conventional citizenship in the magnitude of racial differences within gender

and SES groups was rejected.

31

Table 6: Means and standard deviations for gender differences within different SES groups by
race on conventional citizenship (N = 911)

 

Conventional Citizenship

 

SES by Gender Mean Standard Deviation Alpha Cohen’s d

 

African American
low books and low
educational aspirations
Girls 11.08 2.42 .288 n.s.
Boys 9.97 2.30

low books OR low
educational aspirations

Girls 1079 2.40
Boys 10.40 2.23
high books and high
educafionalaspfiafions
Girls 9.77 2.39
Boys 10.16 2.29
White American

low books and low

educaflonalaspfiafions
Girls 10.75 2.88
Boys 9.96 2.63

low books OR low
educational aspirations

Girls 10.34 2.04
Boys 10.38 2.33
high books and high
educational aspirations
Girls 10.71 2.02
Boys 10.24 2.86

 

Individual Citizenship Items. In addition to the conventional citizenship
scale items previously discussed, there were nine other citizenship items not
scaled. There were no hypotheses for these items. These items were examined
to place the conventional citizenship items in context. T-test was used to test
differences between racial groups on all 15 citizenship items. Table 7 shows the

ranking of the means of these items, including the conventional citizenship items,

32

for African American and White American students. Both African Americans and
White Americans students were most likely to say that obeying the law and
working hard were important for citizenship. Conventional citizenship items

ranked low for both racial groups.

Table 7: Mean ranking and standard deviations on all citizenship items by race

 

 

 

 

African American White American
Item M SD Item M SD
An adult who is
a good citizen...
Obeys the law 3.71 .66 Obeys the law 3.75 .65
Works hard 3.51 .79 Works Hard 3.55 .77
Participates in activities 3.37 .77 Patriotic and loyal to 3.42 .80
to benefit people country
Engage in environmental 3.29 .81 Participates in Activities 3.30 .78
activities to benefit people
*Shows respect for 3.25 .86 Engage in environmental 3.19 .86
government activities
Takes part in human 3.23 .86 Takes part in human 3.18 .82
rights activities rights activities
“Votes in every election 3.16 .93 *Votes in every election 3.14 .88
Patriotic and loyal to 3.11 .96 *Shows respect for 3.12 .93
country government
Would participate in 3.01 .99 Willing to serve in the 3.05 .97
peaceful protest military
*Knows about country’s 2.96 1.01 *Knows about country’s 2.97 .91
history history
Vtfilling to serve in the 2.81 1.08 Would participate in 2.87 .94
military peaceful protest
*Engages in political 2.66 .96 “Follows political issues 2.70 .89
discussions in the media
Ignore laws violating 2.64 1.16 *Engages in political 2.60 .94
human rights discussions
*Follows political issues 2.59 .96 Ignores laws violating 2.56 1.16
in the media human rights
*Joins a political party 2.41 .99 “Joins a political party 2.34 .96

 

* conventional citizenship items

Significant racial differences were found on three of the citizenship items
(see Table 8). Unlike White American youth, African American youth were less

likely to believe that being patriotic and serving in the military are important for

33

citizenship and more likely to say that citizens should show respect for the

government.

Table 8: Top three mean differences for all citizenship items by race

 

Item Mean Difference Mean Mean Alpha

 

(African (White
American) American)

 

An adult who is
a good citizen...

Patriotic and loyal .309 3.11 3.42 .001
to country

Willing to serve in .247 2.81 3.05 .001
the military

Shows respect for .136 3.25 3.12 .025
government

 

34

Discussion
Summary and Discussion of Findings

Gender differences. The goal of this study was to compares differences by
race, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) in the importance of conventional
citizenship among African American and White American 14 year olds in the US.
When compared on how they viewed good adult citizenship behaviors, no
differences were found between African American youth and White American
youth on conventional citizenship. Contrary to Hahn’s study, girls were found to
value conventional citizenship more than boys. Particularly, low SES girls,
defined as having a “low number of books” in the home and “low educational
aspirations,” value conventional forms of political participation more than low
SES boys. No racial differences within gender groups were found on
conventional citizenship.

Even though an apparent gender gap between low SES girls and boys, it
is important to keep in mind that the overall trend showed that most young
people do not value conventional citizenship more than other forms of
citizenship. Moreover, previous research in US. adult populations has shown
that social class is a predictor of civic participation with those that are poorer
being less active than those that are more advantaged (Schlozman et al, 1999).
Perhaps that helps to explain why the gender difference appeared among low
SES youth and not mid- or high SES youth. I suspect that for low SES boys, the
difference could be due to them having low feelings of political efficacy. An earlier

study on political participation among non-college attending youth age 18-25

35

revealed that this group was less likely to view voting as important and less likely
to believe that political leaders pay attention to the concerns of people like
themselves (Lopez and Kolaczkowski, 2003). Likewise, in a study on political
efficacy among homeless adults, self esteem and critical awareness were related
to perceptions of the political system as being responsive to individual and
collective demands for change (Yeich & Levine, 1994). Given their position in a
low SES group, perhaps boys do not feel they will have the power as adults to
influence political systems or that the political systems will not be responsive to
their needs (Yohalem & Pittman, 2001).

In terms of low SES girls valuing conventional citizenship more than low
SES boys, perhaps girls possess several of the characteristics identified by Hahn
among youth with a high degree of political interest (i.e., regular consumers of
news, talk often about current events and are involved in school and local
politics). Low SES girls might also possess more personal and social assets than
boys which might lead to a higher level of resiliency (Benard, 2004). What the
data does not show is whether or not conventional citizenship behaviors are
something girls will be motivated do themselves as adults.

Differences on All Citizenship Items. Overall, conventional citizenship was
not as valued as some other forms of citizenship regardless of race. Consistent
with findings from previously discussed studies, obeying the law and working
hard were valued most as being good adult citizenship behaviors by both African
American and White American youth. However, the two groups differed

significantly on their value of citizenship activities that show allegiance to the

36

country with African Americans being the least likely to say that patriotism and
willingness to serve in the military were important to them. African American
youth did value showing respect for the government more than White American
youth.

These findings suggest that 14 year-olds do not show a strong interest in
conventional citizenship and instead appear to value more passive forms of civic
participation. With obeying the law and working hard being valued most by 14-
year-olds, this could be a reflection of where they are developmentally as they
are socialized at a young age to obey authority and are just at the point of
formulating and testing out their own beliefs as distinct from their parents. It
would be interesting to see how these young people view conventional forms of
civic participation as older youth.

The lack of interest among African American youth in serving in the
military and in being patriotic might be attributed to their awareness of the
historical experiences of inequality by the larger African American community. It
is important to note that the data reflects youth attitudes prior to the tragic events
of 9/11. Similar to what was found in earlier research, the attitudes of young
people growing up in marginalized communities could also be affected by their
own lived experiences and may result in their lack of interest in patriotism and
associated acts. In addition, African American youth holding a higher value for
showing respect for government may have a lot to do with the values they are
taught by their parents that is to have respect for authority (Spencer and

Dombusch, 1990).

37

Implications. Findings from this study suggest that particular attention
should be given to the development of appropriate interventions for low SES
boys to help cultivate positive attitudes toward civic participation. Perhaps the
social justice and youth organizing approaches to civic participation could be
used as a way to foster empowering attitudes and critical awareness that leads to
action for justice in low SES boys. To help all youth broaden their idea of good
citizenship beyond obeying the law and working hard, opportunities for
meaningful engagement along with more hands-on experiences should be
created that involve young people in power settings. For example, youth advisory
councils for governor’s and mayor’s offices are direct ways young people can
gain hands-on experience to influence the policymaking process. However,
opportunities for meaningful engagement is undemtined at times because these
groups often lack adequate resources to function well, diversity in representation
particularly in regards to engaging non-traditional leaders, and enough
opportunities for youth voices to be taken seriously.

Limitations. For the current study, measures of adult conventional
citizenship behaviors could be expanded to include more questions related to
direct participation in power settings such as contacting elected officials, holding
policy makers accountable, keeping track of laws that affect them, attending and
testifying at public hearings, participating in political campaigns, etc. It would
have also been interesting to examine what young people think they will actually

do as adult citizens. In regards to African American youth specifically, measures

38

should have been expanded to include social justice-oriented forms of
citizenship.

Suggestions for Further Research. Research and developmental
frameworks for youth should be expanded to include the development of civic
identities particularly as it relates to youth participation in power settings.

Further research should be done on the politically efficacy of youth and youth
engagement to influence public policy. For example, future research could
explore young people’s attitudes towards the inclusion of youth in public policy
decisions and how that affects their level of civic engagement. How do young
people view their role in policymaking? What are their opinions about
policymakers and the process of policymaking? Do young people see it as
worthwhile to voice their concerns to adults who make decisions that affect their
lives? Are young people more likely to be active citizens as adults if they are
engaged directly in the policymaking process in their teenage years? Connecting
young people to power settings where they are given meaningful roles could be
particularly important in their political socialization and help to expand their
concept of themselves as future citizens and leaders.

Future research should also explore the perceptions of policymakers when
young people are engaged in the process. How do they view young people’s role
in policymaking? Do they feel better informed on youth issues when they hear
directly from young people? Do they factor young people’s ideas and
perspectives into their decision-making? Does the demand for youth voice

among policymakers increase as a result of youth being involved in the process?

39

 

Do outcomes for youth improve as a result of policymakers being better informed
about youth policy issues? Creating opportunities for policymakers to have face
to face dialogue with young people could help them to view young people as
resources and to create policies that are less punitive in nature and more
positively aligned, supportive and in tune to what young people really need.

Young people need facilitated opportunities to be involved in the decision-
making process particularly as it relates to public policy. Making room for young
voices in decision-making may also help them to become invested in policies that
are set for them. For African American youth and other marginalized youth,
decision-makers can benefit from their authentic stories to help shape positive
policies that promote change in communities and improve the quality of life for
these young people as well as enhance their developmental outcomes. The goal
of facilitated opportunities for young people in decision making should be to
create the demand among policymakers for youth voices to demonstrate a value
for youth perspectives, to build the skills needed for an active and engaged

citizenry and to develop future political leaders.

4O

APPENDIX A

41

$0380
.0000E09_>00

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 030000500

002000000 .0258

00.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.? 00.0 5.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 300. 00.0 00.0 00.0 5000000900

0003000

9000 00:50

00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 5000000002:

E0EE0>00 02

00.0 0F.0 00.0 00.0 00... 3.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 00 00.0 00.0 8000000300w0m

0_ 00

E0000 2 0003000

00.0 03.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 30.0 0F.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0_ 000092000 .0

0000. 05 0_ 00:03

30.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 :0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0258 3&0... .0

05:0

00... 00.0 30.? 00.0 Be 30.0 F04 00.0 00... 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.? _.0.0 0_0>L00200____>>.n

0202 0.90:8

004 30.0 00.0 _.0.0 80. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 Foe 00.0 30000265. .0

000090 .200000 0 0_

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 5.0 00092000 0.330

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 03.0 :0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 0008.“

0

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.? 3.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.0 3.0 0056000060 .0

00:00.0

00.0 5.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 9.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00>00_m08>.0

00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 2.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 :0 30.050000...

. . 00020 0000

0 0_ on; “.000 0<

cm 000.2 cm 000.2 am 000.2 am 000—2 00 0005. am 0005. am 000.2 E0:
"Z "Z "Z "Z "2 n2 "2
000 09: 000 5200.2 000 26.. 0.050”. 0.05. I922, 080002 08:?

 

0mm 000 000000 .0000 >0 0E0: 90000006 :0 00 00000300 00000000 000 0000.2 “0 0.000.

42

 

00... v0.0

00.0 00.0

of? 30.0

00.0 >00

39

V0.0

«0.0

00.0

3....

00.0

00.0

30.0

Car 000

00.0 00.0

00.0 00.0
5.0 ~00

of?
00.0

00.00

00.000 000.03

30.0 030. 00.000. .0?
000000 0. .03.

3.0 000 000.000 .3..

00000000 0 0.00...

43

APPENDIX B

44

IEA Civic Education Study
Background

The 1999 IEA Civic Education Study (CivEd) conducted in the United
States was sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics. CivEd was
an international assessment of the civic knowledge and skills of 14-year-olds in
28 countries. Additional survey items included measurement of students'
concepts of democracy, citizenship, and government; attitudes toward civic
issues; and expected political participation. Students also answered questions on
their background characteristics and on the classroom climate. In the United
States, the assessment was administered to 2,811 students across 124 public
and private schools nationwide at the beginning of 9th grade. (Williams, et al,
2002, p.1-1)

Measures. The instrumentation of the CivEd Study consisted of separately
administered student, teacher, and school components. The Student component
consisted of a civic education assessment and attitude items, and a separately
timed background questionnaire collecting basic demographic information and
information on the student’s civic instruction. (Williams et al, 2002)

The items developed for the CivEd study reflect a common core of topics.
These include elections, individual rights, national identity, political participation,
the role of the police and the military, organizations that characterized civil
society, relation of economics to politics, and respect for ethnic and political
diversity (Torney-Purta, Schwille and Amadeo, 1999). These topics were defined

within the following three content domains:

45

Domain l: Democracy

What does democracy mean, and what are its associated institutions and

practices? The three subdomains were:

- Democracy and its defining characteristics

- Institutions and practices in democracy

- Citizenship-rights and duties

Domain II: National Identity, Regional and International Relationships

How can the sense of national identity or national loyalty among young
people be described, and how does it relate to their orientation to other countries
and to regional and international organizations? The two subdomains were:

- National identity
- International/regional relations
Domains Ill: Social Cohesion and Diversity

What do issues of social cohesion and diversity mean to young people,
and how do they view discrimination?

Data Collection. The Untied States uses external test administrators
(called field supervisors) hired and trained by Westat, a contractor to the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Each field supervisor was responsible for
approximately 10 schools located in a geographic region. Supervisor
responsibilities included calling the schools to confirm arrangement, visiting
schools to select the class or student sample, preparing and distribution

questionnaires, conducting the test sessions, collecting all assessment materials

46

and shipping everything for processing. The Student instrument was distributed

and collected during the assessment session. (Williams et al, 2002)

47

APPENDIX C

48

References

Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V., and Nikolova, R.
(2002). Civic knowledge and engagement. Amsterdam: IEA International
Association for the study of Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Baldi, S., Perle, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E., & Hahn, C. (2001). What
democracy means to ninth graders: U. S. results from the international IEA
Civic Education Study. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.

Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What have we Ieamed. San Francisco: WestEd.

Benson, P. L., Mannes, M., Pittman, K., & Ferber, T. (2004) Youth development,
developmental assets, and public policy. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg
(Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology (2Ml ed ., pp. 781-814). New York:
Vtfiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Child
Development, 6, 187-249.

Conover, P. J., & Searing, D. D. (2000). A political socialization perspective. In L.
M. McDonnell, P. M. Timpane, and R. Benjamin (eds.), Rediscovering the
democratic purposes of education (pp. 91 -1 24). Lawrence: University Press
of Kansas.

Cooks, J., & Epstein, T. (2000). Dissin’ democracy? African American
adolescents’ concepts of citizenship. Joumal of Social Studies Research,
24(2), 10-20.

Gambone, M., Klem, A., Connell, J. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth:
Testing key links in a community action framework for youth development.
Philadelphia: Youth Development Strategies Inc., and Institute for Research
and Reform in Education.

Gambone, M.A., Yu, H.C., Lewis-Charp, H., Sipe, S.L., Lacoe, J. (2004). A
comparative analysis of community youth development strategies. (Circle
Working Paper 23). College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research
on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social

justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Youth
Development, 96, 27-46.

49

Hahn, C. (1996). Gender and political learning. Theory and Research in Social
Education, 24(1), 8-35.

lrby, M., Ferber, T., Pittman, K., with J. Tolman, & N. Yohalem. (2001). Youth
action: Youth contributing to communities, communities supporting youth.
Community & Youth Development Series, Volume 6. Takoma Park, MD: The
Forum for Youth Investment, International Youth Foundation.

Levine, P., & Lopez, M. H. (2002, September). Youth voter turnout has declined
by any measure (Fact Sheet). College Park, MD: The Center for Information
and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Lopez, M. H., & Kolaczkowski, J. P. (2003, February). Civic engagement among
non-college attending 18-25 year olds (Fact Sheet). College Park, MD: The
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Pittman, K., lrby, M., Tolman, J., Yohalem, N., & Ferber, T. (2003) Preventing,
problems, promoting development, encouraging engagement: Competing
priorities or inseparable goals?. Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth
Investment, Impact Strategies, Inc.

Prilleltensky, I. & Fox, D. R. (in press). Psychopolitical literacy for wellness and
justice. Journal of Community Psychology.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs
to promote youth development. Committee on Community-Level Programs for
Youth. Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer A. Gootman, eds. Board on Children,
Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (1999). Civic participation and the
equality problem. In T. Skocpol & M.P. F iorina (Eds), Civic Engagement in
American Democracy (pp. 427-459). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute
Press.

Spencer M.B., & Dombusch, S. M. (1998) (REPRIN'I). Challenges in studying
minority youth. In R.E. Muuss & H.D. Portion (Eds), Adolescent Behavior and
Society: A Book of Readings (5th ed., pp. 316-330). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Sullivan, L., Edwards, D., Johnson, M, McGillicuddy, K. (2000). An emerging
model for working with youth: Community organizing + youth development =

50

youth organizing. (Occasional Paper Series on Youth Organizing No. 1). New
York, NY: F unders Collaborative on Youth Organizing.

Torney-Purta, J. & Amadeo, J (2003). A cross-national analysis of political and
civic involvement among adolescents. Political Science and Politics, 269-274.

Torney-Purta, J. & Amadeo, J. (2004). Strengthening democracy in the Americas
through civic education. Washington, DC: Organization of American States.

Torney—Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and
education in twenty-eight countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age
fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.

Watts, R., Flanagan, C. (in press). Pushing the envelope on youth civic
engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal
of Community Psychology.

Watts, R. J., & Williams, N. C. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1I2), 185.

\Mlliams, T., Roey, S., Smith, C., Moore, D., Kastberg, D., Fowler, J. (2002). The
1999 IEA Civic Education Study United States User’s Guide. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Yohalem, N, & Pittman, K. (2001, October). Powerful pathways: Framing options
and opportunities for vulnerable youth. Discussion paper of the Youth
Transition Funders Group. Takoma Park, MD: The Forum for Youth
Investment, lntemational Youth Foundation.

Youniss, J., McLeIlan, J.A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about
engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist. 40(5), 620-631.

51

62882

 

......