NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report November 1998

The Civic Development of

9th- Through 12th-Grade Students

in the United States: 1996

Richard G. Niemi

Department of Political Science

University of Rochester

Chris Chapman

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 1999-131

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition

of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning

and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and

high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to

a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product

or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

November 1998

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. The Civic Development of 9thThrough 12th-Grade Students in the United States: 1996, NCES 1999-131, by Richard G. Niemi and

Chris Chapman. Project Officer, Kathryn Chandler. Washington, DC: 1998.

Contact:

Chris Chapman

(202) 219-4182

(e-mail) nhes@ed.gov

http://www.ed.gov/NCES/NHES

iii

Executive Summary

This report provides an extensive picture of factors often thought to be associated with

promoting good citizenship among youth. In particular, it focuses on the civic development of

9th- through 12th-grade students. Broadly speaking, student characteristics, family influences, the

role of schools, media factors, and the possible benefits of participation in community service activities are related to civic development. Initial analyses study how these factors relate to civic development in isolation from one another while the latter part of the report studies their

relationship to civic development in conjunction with one another.

Civic development, as defined in this report, consists of five dimensions: political knowledge, attention to politics, political participation skills, political efficacy, and tolerance of diversity. Information about civic development was collected from a nationally representative sample

of 4,212 9th- through 12th-grade students and their parents and is based on responses to over a

dozen questions. Both the students and their parents were given a short political knowledge quiz.

They were also asked how often they paid attention to politics through various news media and

how often they interacted with one another on political issues garnered from news media. Political

participation skills were tapped through questions asking how confident respondents felt about

writing officials letters or speaking at public meetings. Responses to questions about how well the

respondent understood politics and how much say the respondent’s family had in government

were used to tap political efficacy, and tolerance of diversity was studied based on answers to

questions about tolerating controversial books in public libraries and about allowing speech

against religion. The data were collected from January through April 1996 as part of the National

Household Education Survey.

Some of the more important questions and relevant results presented in the report are summarized below.

Are there any differences between 9th- through 12th-grade students and their

parents on key dimensions of civic development?

The answer to this question is yes for two of the dimensions of civic development under

study. Parents tend to know more about politics than do students. For instance, 17 percent of parents were able to answer all five of the political knowledge questions correctly while only 8
Executive Summary

iv

percent of the students could do so. The knowledge disparity may be due in part to the fact that

parents are more likely than students to pay attention to politics. Over one-third of parents read

about the news almost every day compared to only one in ten students and parents are also more

likely to watch or listen to the news than are students. The disparity in political knowledge scores

is reflected in one of the political efficacy questions. Approximately 61 percent of parents believe

they understand politics compared with 55 percent of students. However, students are more likely

to believe that their family has a say in government than are parents. There are no notable differences between parents and youth in terms of political participation skills or tolerance of diversity;

57 percent of both groups would allow a controversial book to be included in a public library.

Do students, as they progress through the education system, have better civic

development scores? Are there other student characteristics that are related to

civic development?

A student’s grade in school, controlling for other factors such as the student’s race–ethnicity, activities, and family and school characteristics, is positively related to all dimensions of civic

development. Students in higher grades are more likely to be knowledgeable about politics, pay

attention to politics, trust their participatory skills, be politically efficacious, and be tolerant of diversity than are students in lower grades.

Other student characteristics tend to present a less consistent picture. For instance, when

controlling for other factors, white students are generally more knowledgeable about politics than

are minority students and more tolerant of diversity in terms of allowing controversial books in a

public library; minority students are about as likely to trust in their participation skills as white

students and are more efficacious in terms of believing that their family has a say in what government does.

Does attention to politics translate into higher levels of civic development?

For the most part, the answer is yes. Those students who pay more attention to politics

through the print media and/or television and radio tend to be more knowledgeable about politics.

They also tend to have greater trust in their political participation skills, and tend to be more efficacious, at least in terms of feeling as though they understand politics. These relationships hold

even after controlling for a large number of student characteristics, other student activities, and

various family and school traits. One dimension of civic development not associated with attention

to politics is tolerance of diversity. Apart from suggesting students should be
Executive Summary

v

encouraged to pay attention to politics, the results also suggest that the media may have a positive

role to play in civic development.

What types of activities in which students engage are associated with higher

levels of civic development?

Both participation in student government and regular participation in community service activities are related to a number of dimensions of civic development. Those students who participate in student government tend to be more knowledgeable about politics, more confident in their

participation skills, more confident that they understand politics, and more tolerant of such things

as public libraries carrying controversial books than students who do not participate in student

government. These results held even after controlling for student characteristics, other kinds of

student activities, and family and school characteristics.

Many of the same relationships are found between regular participants (35 hours or more

during the school year) in community service and civic development. Generally, regular participants have higher levels of civic development than do students who participate less often or not at

all. The only exceptions are that regular participants, while having more confidence in their ability

to make statements at public meetings, are not more likely to have confidence in their ability to

write the government or to tolerate controversial books in public libraries than are other students.

What role does the family play in student civic development?

Much of the research of the 1960s and 1970s suggested that the family, or at least parents,

had only limited influence on the civic development of students. Findings in this report provide a

somewhat different picture. After controlling for a large number of other potential factors, parent

responses to given questions about civic development are positively related to student responses

on the same items in almost every instance. Students of parents with high political knowledge

scores tend to have high political knowledge scores, students of parents who regularly read the

news also tend to read the news on a regular basis, and so forth. The only exception is for the

item on writing a letter to a government official.

Do students attending public and private schools have similar levels of civic

development?

Of the eleven indicators of civic development used in the report, private school students

score notably better on four indicators. After controlling for a host of other factors described
Executive Summary

vi

above, private school students tend to have higher political knowledge scores, are more likely to

have confidence in their ability to speak at public meetings, are more likely to feel as though they

understand politics, and are more likely to accept the presence of controversial books in public

libraries than are public school students. On the other indicators of civic development, public and

private school students look similar.

Summary

This report fills a number of voids on research focusing on younger Americans and their

civic development. Perhaps the biggest is simply the time lag between a series of studies conducted in the 1960s and early 1970s and the present. There have been few extensive studies of

youth civic development since that time. Findings in this report suggest that the current generation

of American youth may have different correlates of civic development than the youth of the 1960s

and 1970s. For instance, earlier research suggests that parents play only a very limited role in

youth civic development, but this report indicates that parents may now have a stronger influence

on the civic development of youth.

Some of the differences that appear to exist between earlier research and this report on such

issues as the relationship between parents and youth civic development may in part be due to the

fact that this report focuses on students in grades 9 through 12. Much of the earlier research focused solely on 12th-grade students or college students. However, results presented here indicate

that there are important differences between students in higher and lower grades that deserve

more attention.

The report also looks at the possible relationships between community service activity and

civic development. While there have been many benefits accredited to community service including higher levels of civic development, little research has been done to study the relationship between the two. Community service activity does appear to be associated with some components

of civic development such as increased political knowledge, increased confidence in the ability to

speak at public meetings, and a stronger sense that one understands politics. It should be kept in

mind, however, that community service in general does not seem to promote several factors associated with good citizenship. For instance, there does not appear to be a correlation between

community service per se and tolerance of diversity. It is important to explore the

relationship between community service and civic development further, since data collected for

this report do not allow for an analysis of different types of community service. If such factors as

the type of activity the service entailed, who was assisted, who sponsored the service, and so on,

are taken into account, community service might be more closely related to other dimensions of

civic development.
Executive Summary

vii

Research on the topic of youth civic development has pointed to a number of agents that are

typically related to civic development. These agents include the family, schools, and the media.

Apart from these agents, student characteristics and activities have also been studied. Seldom

have all of these agents, characteristics, and activities been studied at the same time. By simultaneously analyzing these factors, this report helps sort out their relative roles in the civic development of American youth.
viii

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank staff from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this report, including Paul Planchon, Dan

Kasprzyk, Steve Kaufman, Mary Frase, Jeffrey Owings, and Michael Cohen. We would also like

to thank Susan Choy, Xianglei Chen, Barbara Kridl, Andrea Livingston, Karyn Madden, Francesca Tussing, and Leslie Retallick of MPR Associates, Inc. for their assistance with various

stages of the analysis, for reviewing the report, and for preparing it for dissemination. Kay

Schlozman of Boston College, Patricia Avery of the University of Minnesota, and Sally Ruddy of

Central Michigan University provided valuable comments that helped significantly improve the

report. Also contributing constructive comments were Sean Creighton and Amanda Miller of the

Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI). Any remaining errors or problems are the sole responsibility of the authors.
ix

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. viii

List of Tables......................................................................................................................... xi

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xiii

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Previous Research................................................................................................................. 3

Individual Factors.............................................................................................................. 3

Family Factors................................................................................................................... 4

School-Related Factors...................................................................................................... 5

Community Involvement/Service Learning......................................................................... 6

Scope of the Present Study ................................................................................................... 9

Data Sources and Indicators................................................................................................. 11

Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development................................................................ 15

Variations in Civic Development.......................................................................................... 23

Student Characteristics...................................................................................................... 23

Student Activities.............................................................................................................. 30

Family and School Characteristics...................................................................................... 37

Multivariate Tests of the Relationship Between Student, Family, and School

Characteristics and Civic Development ............................................................................... 45

Political Knowledge........................................................................................................... 46

Attention to Politics........................................................................................................... 48

Political Participation Skills ............................................................................................... 50

Political Efficacy................................................................................................................ 52

Tolerance of Diversity ....................................................................................................... 54

Community Service and Service Learning........................................................................... 57

Summary and Conclusions................................................................................................... 61
Table of Contents

x

Page

Survey Methodology and Data Reliability........................................................................... 63

Response Rates ................................................................................................................. 64

Data Reliability.................................................................................................................. 64

Weighting and Sampling Errors......................................................................................... 65

Nonsampling Errors........................................................................................................... 66

Derived Variables.............................................................................................................. 67

Statistical Tests ................................................................................................................. 70

Multivariate Analysis......................................................................................................... 70

References.............................................................................................................................. 73
xi

List of Tables

Table Page

1a Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics:

1996............................................................................................................................ 24

1b Attention to politics of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics:

1996............................................................................................................................ 25

1c Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics:

1996............................................................................................................................ 26

1d Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics:

1996............................................................................................................................ 27

1e Tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics: 1996............. 28

2a Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996 ...... 30

2b Attention to politics of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996...... 31

2c Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996 ........ 34

2d Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996 ........... 35

2e Political tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996......... 36

3a Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school

characteristics: 1996 .................................................................................................... 39

3b Attention to politics of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school

characteristics: 1996 .................................................................................................... 40

3c Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school

characteristics: 1996 .................................................................................................... 41

3d Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school

characteristics: 1996 .................................................................................................... 42

3e Political tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school

characteristics: 1996 .................................................................................................... 43
List of Tables

xii

Table Page

4 OLS regression predicting the political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12:

1996............................................................................................................................ 47

5 OLS or logistic regression predicting the attention to politics of students in grades 9

through 12: 1996 ......................................................................................................... 49

6 Logistic regression predicting the participation skills of students in grades 9 through

12: 1996 ...................................................................................................................... 51

7 Logistic regression predicting the political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12:

1996............................................................................................................................ 53

8 Logistic regression predicting the political tolerance of students in grades 9 through

12: 1996 ...................................................................................................................... 55

9 Comparison of select community service regression coefficients between all 9ththrough 12th-grade students and 9th- through 12th-grade students whose service was

required or arranged by schools: 1996.......................................................................... 58
xiii

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12 and of their parents: 1996........ 15

2 Political attentiveness of students in grades 9 through 12 and of their parents: 1996..... 17

3 Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12 and of their parents: 1996.......... 18

4 Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12 and of their parents: 1996............. 19

5 Political tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12 and of their parents: 1996........... 20

6 Percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported selected aspects of civic

development, by academic performance: 1996 ............................................................. 29

7 Percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported selected aspects of civic

development, by participation in student government: 1996.......................................... 32

8 Percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported selected aspects of civic

development, by highest level of parental education: 1996............................................ 38

1

Introduction

Ironically, as an ever-larger portion of the world embraces democratic systems and values

(Huntington 1996), concern about the vitality of democracy in the United States has reemerged.

A number of developments have helped fuel this concern, including voter turnout rates that have

declined steadily since 1960 (Teixera 1992; Stanley and Niemi 1998), falling levels of involvement

in nonpolitical civic associations and other communal activities (Putnam 1995), stubbornly low

levels of political knowledge and tolerance of diversity despite rising education levels (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996; Nie et al. 1996), widespread distrust of government and societal leaders

(Nye et al. 1997; Blendon et al. 1997; Stanley and Niemi 1998), and growing incivility within political institutions (Mahtesian 1997).

Perhaps more significantly, there is a sense that the next generation of Americans is especially affected by these societal changes and, in response, has “opted out” of politics (Democracy’s Next Generation 1989). Frequently cited as evidence is the low level of interest in keeping

up with politics or in discussing politics expressed by college freshmen in recent nationwide surveys (CIRP 1997), though others cite youths’ general pessimism about the future and the loss of a

sense of community (“Selected Review” n.d. 18–20). While declining civic involvement and

heightened disengagement among youths are debatable,1 what has become clear is that democratic

predispositions need to be nurtured—that they do not develop so spontaneously that it can be

taken for granted that every new generation will be as supportive of America’s political and civic

traditions and institutions as were previous generations.

The knowledge that good citizenship does not just happen but is something to be developed,

combined with growing concern about the future of American democracy, has helped propel the

issue of developing good citizens back onto the education agenda. It led the National Education

Goals Panel to recommend that “. . . every school in America will ensure that all students learn to

use their minds well, so that they may be prepared for responsible citizenship. . . .” (National Education Goals Panel 1997). Using schools to promote good citizenship is not new; the idea has

roots extending back to late 18th-century conceptualizations of the American

 

1Braungart and Braungart (forthcoming) paint a very upbeat picture of the current younger generation based on a number of

national youth surveys conducted in the 1990s. Among other things, they cite high rates of community involvement, the possible effects of which are a major concern in this analysis. Based on a 1997 poll, the Ford Foundation reports that more young

Americans (18–29-year-olds) are considering working for government and are doing so for more altruistic reasons than in 1995.

More generally, Ladd (1998) argues that civic engagement among adults in the United States is currently high and is in fact

increasing.
Introduction

2

education system (many of which were based on even earlier works such as Plato and Aristotle)

(Cremin 1980; Butts 1981). Then, as now, schools are being called upon to help instill a sense of

civic duty and to provide the intellectual tools necessary for political participation.

In order to better understand what factors may lead to the development of better citizens,

this report examines data from two components of the 1996 National Household Education Survey (NHES): Youth Civic Involvement, and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and

Civic Involvement. From these data, it is possible to determine student levels of political knowledge, self-reported attention to politics, political participatory skills, degrees of political efficacy,

and tolerance of diversity, which we refer to collectively as “measures of civic development.” As

we will make clear below, all of these components (though not the specific measures) are found in

the new voluntary standards for civic education and the 1998 National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP). The relationship between student characteristics, activities in school, family and

school backgrounds, and these measures of civic development will also be examined. Of particular

interest, because of its prominence in recent educational theory and national dialogues and legislation, is the relationship between students’ participation in community service and their civic development.
3

Previous Research

Awareness of government and politics, and even rudimentary political participation, begins

at an early age, but an adult-like understanding of politics develops only in late adolescence (Hyman 1959; Adelson and O’Neil 1966; Jennings and Niemi 1974). It is at this point that society attempts to educate youth for citizenship roles through civics and government courses in school

along with the “practice” of democracy in school organizations. In addition to studying the role of

schools, a long tradition of research on political socialization has identified individual and family

characteristics that appear to be significant in the development of democratic attitudes, knowledge, and behavior.2

Individual Factors

The most obvious factors are the characteristics of individuals themselves. Paralleling the

enormous difference that education level makes in adult surveys, achievement levels of students

—denoted, for example, by their grade point averages in school or their academic programs—are

important in the process of civic development. Apart from being positively related to political

knowledge (Jennings and Niemi 1974; Anderson et al. 1990; Niemi and Junn 1998), achievement

levels have also been associated with political trust (Niemi and Junn 1998) and community participation (Nolin et al. 1997). Acting as a proxy for the accumulation of experience a child attains

through longer and longer exposure to education, it is also expected that a child’s grade level in

school will influence key political skills as well as attitudes such as political efficacy and tolerance

of diversity.

Because of their association with important life experiences, certain characteristics established at birth are also significant correlates of civic development. One such factor, race–ethnicity,

is related to a variety of components that go into civic development. Some early research suggested that black and Hispanic youths had more positive attitudes toward the political system

early in their lives than did whites, though black and Hispanic disenchantment was much more

precipitous through the teen years (Dawson et al. 1977). By the 1970s, however, Abramson concluded that, on balance, both black and Hispanic preadults had lower political efficacy than whites

and that blacks also expressed less trust in the political system than whites (Abramson 1983).

 

2This line of research emerged in the 1950s and waned in the 1970s. There has been a resurgence in the field that is, in part,

attributable to the increasing concerns about the future of American democracy referred to in the Introduction.
Previous Research

4

With respect to participation, some research indicates that Hispanic teenagers claim to have undertaken less volunteer activity (Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1997), but race–ethnicity was not a

significant factor in volunteer activity according to a recent multivariate analysis (Nolin et al.

1997). In addition, black and Hispanic high school seniors in the 1988 NAEP expressed slightly

greater interest in civics and government than did white students, though their knowledge of this

subject was significantly less (Niemi and Junn 1998).

Early studies also suggested that young females were less knowledgeable than young males

about politics and less likely to participate in campaign-like activities (Hess and Torney 1967;

Jennings and Niemi 1981). More recent research supports this notion with respect to knowledge,

although with some qualifications (Niemi and Junn 1998; Ravitch and Finn 1987). As to participation, a recent adult survey shows that women participate slightly less in political activities than

men but are as active or more active in other community activities (Verba et al. 1995). Similarly,

among teenagers, volunteer activity is slightly greater among girls than boys (Hodgkinson and

Weitzman 1997; Nolin et al. 1997).

Family Factors

Family background and other characteristics of the family play an important role in civic development. Most prominent by far is parental education level and its effect on student political

knowledge levels. So pervasive is this connection that parental education is a standard reporting

criterion in NAEP report cards (Anderson et al. 1990; Beatty et al. 1996). Even when included in

multivariate analyses along with numerous other factors, parental education makes a difference

(Verba et al. 1995; Niemi and Junn 1998).3 Likewise, parental education is related to youths’ participatory attitudes and behavior, including their voluntary community service (Verba et al. 1995;

Nolin et al. 1997). Parental education may also play a role in the development of attitudes such as

political efficacy (Jennings and Niemi 1974), though the evidence is not as conclusive.4

Less clear is the role played by parental attitudes and behaviors themselves. One might hypothesize that parental values would greatly affect the same values in their children. And so it

seems with respect to political partisanship, though even partisan ties develop a life of their own

as young people move into middle adulthood (Niemi and Jennings 1991; Miller and Shanks 1996;

Sears and Valentino 1997). In addition, parental participation seems to have an effect on offspring

behavior, including community voluntarism among youths (Verba et al. 1995; Nolin et al. 1997).

 

3Parental education is to some extent a proxy for social class. Typically, no effort is made to determine exactly what it is about

parent education levels that affects their offspring.

4

Jennings and Niemi (1974), using a sample of high school seniors, found no relationship between parent education and political trust. Verba et al. (1995), relying on an adult sample, found no connection between parent education and civic skills.
Previous Research

5

With respect to attitudes, however, the picture is less straightforward. For example, parentoffspring correlations for political efficacy have been described as “weak” (Abramson 1983), and

it has been remarked that parental influence in general (apart from partisanship) is “meager” (Beck

1977). On the other hand, when two parents share the same attitudes, or when parents and children discuss politics moderately often, similarity in parent and child values is heightened considerably (Jennings and Niemi 1974, 1981).

Finally, families, like schools, have different modes of decision making, which may influence

student attitudes such as political efficacy if not factual political knowledge (Almond and Verba

1963; Chaffee et al. 1973). Early research indicated that children who grew up in households

where their input into decisions was not encouraged tended to have lower interest in becoming

involved politically and socially.

School-Related Factors

Opinion is virtually unanimous that formal education is the strongest, most consistent correlate of political knowledge among individuals (Hyman et al. 1975; Delli Carpini and Keeter

1996; Nie et al. 1996). There is far less certainty, however, about what components of formal

education make citizens more knowledgeable. For example, for many years, the accepted wisdom

in the political science profession was that civics classes have little or no effect on the vast majority of students (Beck 1977). In fact, recent research suggests that schools and individual classes

do have significant effects on student learning (Berliner and Biddle 1995). For instance, an analysis of the 1988 NAEP civics assessment (Niemi and Junn 1998) concludes that the amount and

recency of civics coursework as well as the nature of classroom activities contribute a meaningful

amount to young people’s knowledge of civics and government. Students in classes that deal with

current events have also been shown to be more interested in acquiring knowledge about current

events (news attentiveness) than their counterparts not exposed to such classroom experiences

(Chapman et al. 1997).

Studies of the curriculum and other school characteristics have tended to find fewer positive

effects on attitudes than on knowledge. Hyman and Wright (1979, 65–67), for example, explain in

much detail why the effects of education on values are significant even though “their cumulative

weight in the mind’s scales does not appear as great as that observed in the realm of knowledge.”

Ferguson (1991, 392) notes that social studies instruction has few effects, and where there is an

effect, it is “more instrumental in promoting knowledge . . . [than] participatory attitudes and

skills.” In addition, studies by political scientists have often found only limited effects on student

values (e.g., Langton and Jennings 1968; Merelman 1971). Nevertheless, even here the studies
Previous Research

6

have been anything but uniformly negative, leaving open the possibility that civics instruction influences attitudes such as political efficacy and tolerance of diversity.

Participation in school activities is also a relevant factor, though broad-ranging, multivariate

analyses have been relatively infrequent. What is variously referred to as the context of instruction, or the hidden curriculum (Patrick 1977; Patrick and Hoge 1991), may be a major force in the

development of civic attitudes such as “internal” political efficacy (for a contrary view, see

Merelman 1980). The relevant context includes not only the method of interaction and discourse

in the classroom (Wilen and White 1991), but also the overall “school climate” (Jennings, Ehman,

and Niemi 1974; Ehman 1980; Leming 1985). Likewise, participation in student government and

in extracurricular activities has sometimes been cited as a contributor to more participatory attitudes and behavior, and also as a factor behind participatory skills (Beck and Jennings 1982; Holland and Andre 1987; Verba et al. 1995). While the effects of school climate and policies are

usually thought to be attitudinal, a few studies suggest that they may be related to knowledge levels as well, especially if one conceives of knowledge as the acquisition of certain kinds of conceptual frameworks and skills as opposed to the accumulation of basic facts (Patrick 1977; Verba

et al. 1995; Niemi and Junn 1998).

Finally, the type of school—whether public, church-related private, or other private—is

widely thought to be significant to a variety of cognitive and attitudinal outcomes. Observed differences, of course, may be due to selection factors as well as school influence per se. In any

event, it is relevant here to note that in a recent study, it was found that students in church-related

schools were considerably more likely to be involved in community service (Nolin et al. 1997).

Community Involvement/Service Learning

In addition to the individual, family, and school factors cited above, there has been a recent

focus on the value to students of community involvement and service learning. Service learning in

one form or another has been promoted vigorously since the turn of the century in an effort to

promote civic education and social responsibility (Wade and Saxe 1996; Hepburn 1997). In the

1970s, “experiential learning” was viewed as a means to extend civic education beyond abstract

principles to include concrete community involvement, and in the mid-1980s, the National Commission on Youth (1980) and the Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship (W.T. Grant

1988) endorsed major efforts to assess and promote the potential for advancing school citizenship

education through service learning.

It is in recent years, however, that community involvement has been promoted most vigorously. The call to action has come from many sources and has taken many forms. At the national
Previous Research

7

level, for example, presidential backing and bipartisan support in Congress in 1990 produced the

National and Community Service Trust Act, and under the first Clinton administration, the

AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America programs were established.5 In 1997, a wide-ranging

group of nonprofit organizations, universities, schools, and government organizations established

the “Partnering Initiative on Education and Civil Society” to help build service learning opportunities into elementary, secondary, and postsecondary classroom curricula.

There are at least two competing views of the purpose of service learning (Kahne and Westheimer 1996). One is tied closely to notions of altruism and volunteerism and has as its main purpose helping those in need and thereby fulfilling and perhaps increasing the participants’ sense of

social responsibility. The other is more closely tied to academic learning, including the acquisition

of knowledge, skills, and attitudes supportive of democratic society. The belief that community

service can increase civic development is central to the second view of service learning (Alt and

Medrich 1994; Calhoun 1993). The fact remains, however, that little research has been done linking community service to the development of good citizenship skills and attitudes among adolescents (Conrad and Hedin 1991; Wade and Saxe 1996). Political efficacy has been most frequently

studied; insofar as one can judge from the variety of research designs and measuring instruments,

the findings are mixed. (For a review and assessment of these studies, see Wade and Saxe 1996.)6

At a general level, research suggests that building the service experience into a classroom

setting through class discussions, reports, and so on enhances its positive effects (Conrad and Hedin 1991; Dewsbury-White 1993). It is also suggested that knowledge is most likely to increase

when the service is academically oriented, as with tutoring (Cohen et al. 1982; Hedin 1987). General knowledge is often thought to be neither increased nor decreased by service experiences (Alt

and Medrich 1994), but there may be gains in knowledge related specifically to the tasks performed (Hamilton and Zeldin 1987). Recent research has also raised the question of whether there

is a difference in the effect of voluntary activities and those promoted by or required by a school

(Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1996).

 

5The number and scope of activities have become so large that the National Service-Learning Clearinghouse was established at

the University of Minnesota to foster communication and offer mutual assistance among the many programs. For a brief description of the clearinghouse, see Shumer and Belbas (1996).

6At the college level, Markus et al. (1993) report on the basis of a carefully crafted experimental study of a first-year political

science course that community involvement was strongly related to both attitudinal change and knowledge acquisition. Among

adults, research from the 1950s and the 1990s shows that participation in community groups is associated with enhanced participatory skills (Almond and Verba 1963; Verba et al. 1995).

9

Scope of the Present Study

No recent study has contained all of the individual, family, school, and participation items

described above. The 1988 NAEP civics assessment afforded a wide-ranging study of political

knowledge (Niemi and Junn 1998), but it did not contain parental reports or any information on

voluntary activities. Studies of community service have become more frequent, such as those by

Independent Sector (Hodgkinson and Weitzman 1997) and an earlier report using the NHES:96

data (Nolin et al. 1997), but they have concentrated on the extent of participation and not on its

possible effects. In response to this situation, the present report contains a full complement of

such factors.

This report assesses the current level of high school students’ political knowledge, attention

to politics, political participatory skills, political efficacy, and tolerance of diversity and documents

the personal, family, and school correlates that possibly account for their development. It is not

suggested that the five elements considered here are a complete description of civic development,

only that these are among the civic values and dispositions that ought to be encouraged among

American students. As mentioned earlier, each of these elements and others are cited in the voluntary national standards for civics and American government (Center for Civic Education 1994),

though the specific indicators used in this report were developed independently. The standards

also contain a number of elements not addressed by NHES and that are not dealt with in this report. See also the Civics Framework for the 1998 NAEP, which has three interrelated components: knowledge, intellectual and participatory skills, and civic dispositions.

 It is not expected that all students or all parents will rank highly on each of the components,

nor is it implied that all students or parents should score the same. Nonetheless, citizens in democratic societies are generally expected to be reasonably knowledgeable about their government

and how it operates (political knowledge); to be interested in and aware of politics and government (attention to politics); to have the ability to participate in the governing of their community,

state, and nation (political participatory skills); to feel that they can influence what the government does and that the government responds to their wishes (political efficacy); and to be tolerant

of different opinions (tolerance of diversity). It is how these values and dispositions develop

among high school students that is of interest here.

11

Data Sources and Indicators

The National Household Education Survey (NHES), a large national study of adults and

youth conducted by Westat for the National Center for Education Statistics, provides data to

meet this research need. In 1996, following screening interviews conducted in 55,708 randomly

selected households, telephone interviews were completed with 20,792 parents of children age 3

through 12th grade (the parent most knowledgeable about the child’s education was interviewed).

Approximately 8,000 interviews were conducted with the 6th- through 12th-grade children of

these parents. A more detailed discussion of survey methodology, including response rates and

data reliability, can be found in the section on survey methodology and in Collins et al. (1997).

This report is based on interviews conducted with 4,212 9th- through 12th-grade students

and their parents from the 6th- through 12th-grade sample.7 It is important to keep in mind that

the unit of analysis in the 1996 NHES is the child and not the parent.8 When parent-reported data

are presented in this report, they are in reference to the children. Technically, “the percentage of

parents who answered five political knowledge questions correctly” is “the percentage of students

whose parents answered five political knowledge questions correctly.” Grades 9–12 are chosen

for analysis because, by this time in students’ lives, they are developing an adult-like understanding of politics.9

The student and parent interviews contained a number of items that allowed the study of the

five dimensions of civic development discussed earlier (political knowledge, attention to politics,

political participation skills, political efficacy, and tolerance of diversity). Students were asked

 

7One student whose grade could not be determined was dropped from the analyses, as were children who were home schooled.

Home-schooled children were not included because they were not asked the school-related questions central to this report.

8The adult household member most knowledgeable about the student respondent (usually the mother) provided answers to the

“parent” questionnaire. When discussing parent responses and characteristics, “parent” is used for stylistic purposes in lieu of

“household adult most knowledgeable about the student.” For the same reason, instead of saying “parents or other adults” when

discussing student reports of activities with parents or other adults, only “parent” is used. Correlations of the attitudes and behavior of students with those of their mothers and their fathers are relatively similar (Jennings and Niemi 1974), so that the

oversampling of mothers should not substantially influence the findings. Tests indicate interviewing mothers or fathers had no

substantive effect on the analyses in this report.

9Young children find many political concepts overly complicated or simply outside their sphere of interest; between about ages

13 and 15, however, youths become remarkably adult-like in their capacity to understand and critically evaluate political processes (Adelson and O’Neil 1966; Adelson, Green, and O’Neil 1968). To confirm that the inclusion of 9th and 10th graders (14–

15-year-olds) did not bias results, analyses were conducted using 11th and 12th graders only, with results similar to those reported below.
Data Sources and Indicators

12

sixteen different questions that were used to measure civic development and parents were asked

fifteen.

To ascertain the level of political knowledge held by a respondent, the questionnaire included two sets of standard-knowledge test questions. Each set was composed of five questions

that focused on constitutional issues along with the political setting as it stood in 1996. Two sets

were used so that student and parent would not be asked identical questions. Students were always asked the questions not asked of their parents. A knowledge index was constructed by tallying how many of the five questions the respondent answered correctly. The index had a range of

values from zero to five.

The first question of the first set asked what job or political office was held by Al Gore. The

second asked whose responsibility it is to determine if a law was constitutional. The third asked

which party had the most members in the House of Representatives. The fourth question asked

what majority is needed to override a presidential veto in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The fifth asked which party was more conservative at the national level.

The first question of the second set asked what position Newt Gingrich held. The second

asked whose job it is to nominate judges to the federal courts. The third asked which party had

the most members in the Senate. The fourth asked what the first ten amendments to the Constitution are called. The fifth asked which of the two parties favored a larger defense budget.

Attention to politics was measured using four different items from the survey. The first

asked respondents how often they read about national political issues in a newspaper or newsmagazine. The second followed up with how often respondents watched the national news on

television or listened to it on the radio. After information was collected about the respondents’

use of the media to follow the national news, students were asked how often they watched or listened to the news with their parents or other household adults and parents were asked how often

they did the same with the student respondent. Students were also asked how often they discussed

the news with their parents or other household adults.

Two items were used to tap political participation skills. The first question asked respondents if they felt they could write a letter to someone in government to express a clear opinion.

The second asked whether respondents felt as though they could make a statement at a public

meeting.

Political efficacy was also studied using two questions. Respondents were asked if they felt

that politics and government were too confusing to understand. They were also asked if they

thought their family had a say in what the federal government does.
Data Sources and Indicators

13

The fifth component of civic development, tolerance of diversity, was studied using two

items. Focusing on their own community, respondents were asked if people should be allowed to

make public speeches against churches and religion. They were then asked whether or not a book

of which most people disapproved should be kept out of a public library.

Throughout the report, the knowledge index based on the ten political knowledge questions

will be used to study political knowledge. The other items used to look at attention to politics,

political participation skills, political efficacy, and tolerance of diversity, will be looked at as individual indicators. This approach was taken because each item taps different dimensions of the

concept under which it is grouped. For example, the two political efficacy items tap what are referred to by political scientists as “internal efficacy,” the feeling that one personally understands

politics, and “external efficacy,” the feeling that authorities are responsive to people (Balch 1974;

Niemi et al. 1991).

Two exceptions about studying each indicator of civic development separately occur when

possible relationships between student attention to news and student attention to news with parents, and the other four components of civic development are explored. When this occurs, two

indexes are used. One combines the two indicators of how often the student reads about the national news and watches/listens to the national news. The other combines the two indicators

measuring how often the student watches/listens to the national news with parents and how often

they talk about the national news with their parents.

Along with the parent versions of the civic development indicators discussed above, indicators for the other factors related to student civic development were also taken from the student

and parent interviews. These factors include the student’s demographic characteristics, grade in

school, grade performance, participation in school government, participation in other school activities, participation in out-of-school activities, involvement in community service, role in family

decisions, perception of school openness, and type of school. They also include the highest level

of education attained by parents in the household. A full set of the questionnaires is available in

Chandler (1997).

As with political knowledge, many of the variables used in the report were developed by

combining items from the questionnaire. For a discussion of these variables, please refer to the

“Survey Methodology and Data Reliability” section of this report.

15

Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

Fewer students than parents were able to correctly answer all five of the political knowledge

questions (figure 1) (8.1 percent versus 16.5 percent). Some of the difference can probably be explained by the fact that parents have been exposed to the political system for a longer period of

time than their children. However, it is also the case that six of the ten questions (of which each

respondent answered five) address contemporary issues such as which party now has the most

members in the House of Representatives, while four were about constitutional provisions such as

whose responsibility it is to determine whether a law is constitutional.

Because parents pay more attention to news, they are likely to have the advantage on “contemporary” items. This advantage may not be as noticeable when it comes to questions regarding

constitutional issues because many students will be taking civic courses or just completing them.
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

16

In fact, on the individual items in this study, parents do considerably better on questions about

contemporary politics than do students, while the differences on items regarding constitutional

questions are not as large (students even do better on one of the constitutional questions). In any

event, as measured, students were somewhat less knowledgeable about politics than were their

parents.10

The fact that students pay less attention to politics than their parents is evident in the answers to questions about reading the news and watching/listening to the news (figure 2). More

specifically, the questions asked respondents about their attention to the political aspects of the

national news. Though only one in ten students read about the news almost every day, more than

one-third of their parents do, and while 40 percent of students watch or listen to the news on a

daily basis, nearly 80 percent of their parents do. Inasmuch as attention to news grows well into

adulthood, this difference is expected and will probably narrow as these students age.11

Reading about and watching or listening to national news is not the only source of student

political information and perspectives. Most high school students talk about politics with their

parents at least monthly, and joint watching or listening to the news with parents is also fairly

common (39.9 percent in the past week according to student reports and 61.3 percent according

to parent reports). Talking with parents even once a month, if carried out over a period of years,

may be sufficient for youths to understand parental perspectives and possibly to be influenced by

them. Moreover, the reported frequency of conversations may underestimate the amount of interaction over political matters, as some exchange of ideas may occur when youths and parents

watch the news together.

 

10A recent review of a large number of factual items about politics on adult surveys found positive correlations with age even

after controlling for education (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996, 200–3).

11In recent decades, newspaper readership has declined greatly in favor of watching television, and the trend is continuing

(Stanley and Niemi 1998, 163–64, 167–70). Thus, students are more likely to reach parental levels of television viewing than

of newspaper readership.
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

17
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

18

The differences between student and parent responses to questions about political participation skills are generally less pronounced than those for political knowledge and news attentiveness. Though parents are more confident of these skills than students, more than 90 percent of

both groups are confident of their ability to write a letter to a government office and over 80 percent of both groups are confident of their ability to speak at a public meeting (figure 3).12

 

12A partial explanation for the very high percentage of students who feel able to write a letter to a public official is that this is

a typical assignment in 9th-grade civics or government classes.
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

19

Differences in political efficacy are also smaller than those found in political knowledge and

attention to politics, though the differences are not consistent in terms of direction (figure 4). Approximately 55 percent of students believe that they understand politics compared to 61 percent

of their parents, though 64 percent of students feel as though their family has a say in government

compared to just 55 percent of their parents.13

 

13The question about understanding politics measures “internal efficacy,” the feeling that one personally can understand politics, and the question about family say in government taps “external efficacy,” the feeling that authorities are responsive to

people.
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

20

Finally, with respect to tolerance of diversity, there are no notable differences between students and parents. Eighty-five percent or more of students and of parents are tolerant of speech

against religion, and about 57 percent of both groups support the notion of allowing a controversial book in a public library (figure 5).
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

21
Student and Parent Levels of Civic Development

22

In the cases of political participation skills, political efficacy, and tolerance of diversity, there

is little reason to expect much change after high school. Students are very confident about their

participation skills, and, if anything, one would expect them to become more confident with age

(Schlozman et al. 1998). With respect to efficacy and tolerance, there is a fairly complex set of

relationships to age, education, and generational replacement, but little evidence of a direct connection to life cycle changes beyond adolescence (at least until individuals are in their 60s)

(Jennings and Niemi 1981; Abramson 1983).
23

Variations in Civic Development

As discussed in the section on previous research, student levels of civic development are

likely to be related to characteristics of students, their activities in and out of school, and family

and school characteristics. These patterns may vary from one attribute to another. Academic performance, for example, may be strongly related to student knowledge levels, but only weakly related or not at all related to their degree of tolerance. This suggests a strategy of analyzing the

predictors of each component of civic development separately. However, with five different components (political knowledge, attention to politics, political participation skills, political efficacy,

and tolerance of diversity) measured using eleven different indicators, the most comprehensive

strategy may also be the most comprehensible—i.e., using a series of standard tables to show how

each of the large number of possible correlates is related to each of the five components of civic

development. A brief discussion, highlighting and explaining the most important variations in relationships in the tables, is followed by a multivariate analysis that unites all of the correlates into

one model for each indicator.

Student Characteristics

The current study confirms that there are clear but variable relationships between the student characteristics described above and student civic development (tables 1a–1e). Student grade

in school illustrates this point. With the exceptions of listening or watching the news and external

efficacy, 11th- and 12th-grade students fared better on the civic development indicators than did

9th- and 10th-grade students. Students in higher grades (27.3 percent) were more likely to answer

four or five political knowledge questions correctly than were students in lower grades (12.5 percent), were more likely to read the news at least once a week (44.9 percent) than students in

lower grades (37.6 percent), and had more confidence in their ability to speak at a meeting (86.0

percent) than students in lower grades (79.2 percent). Students in 11th and 12th grades were also

more confident of their understanding of politics (61.0 percent versus 49.6 percent), and were

more likely to tolerate speech against religion (90.3 percent versus 86.4 percent) and controversial books in libraries (63.1 percent versus 51.3 percent).

The differences between students in lower and higher grades can be interpreted in terms of

maturation generally and with respect to political concerns specifically. Thus, because 9th and
Variations in Civic Development

24

Table 1a—Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics: 1996

Students who gave correct answers to political items

Number None to one Two to three Four to five

Student characteristics of students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 49.1 1.0 31.3 0.9 19.6 0.8 

Grade in school

 9–10 7,429,457 58.8 1.3 28.7 1.2 12.5 0.9 

 11–12 6,759,978 38.5 1.4 34.2 1.4 27.3 1.3 

Gender

 Male 7,316,619 43.4 1.4 32.1 1.3 24.5 1.2 

 Female 6,872,816 55.1 1.4 30.5 1.3 14.3 1.0 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 9,688,268 43.0 1.2 32.9 1.1 24.2 1.0 

 Black, Hispanic, or other 4,501,167 62.3 1.8 28.0 1.6 9.7 1.0 

Academic performance

 A 4,399,420 32.9 1.6 35.2 1.7 31.9 1.6 

 B 5,577,888 50.0 1.5 33.0 1.4 17.0 1.1 

 C 3,473,951 63.7 1.9 25.2 1.7 11.1 1.3 

 D–F 738,176 70.5 4.4 24.5 4.3 5.0 1.9 

Language spoken most

at home by student

 English 13,332,729 47.8 1.0 31.8 0.9 20.4 0.8 

 Other 856,706 68.7 3.8 24.4 3.4 7.0 2.3 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

10th graders have only recently begun to comprehend the political world, it is to be expected that

they know less about it and that they pay less attention to it. Similarly, given the cognitively more

demanding nature of reading and discussing as compared with watching the news, it is not surprising that younger students rely more on watching the news than older students do, and older students rely more on reading the news. It is also consistent with a developmental explanation that

when younger students do pay attention to the news, it is more often along with their parents. The

differences with respect to internal efficacy might also be understood as a reaction to growing

comprehension of the adult world of politics, while increases in tolerance may be due to a growing

awareness of the possible merits of other points of view. Importantly, however, the differences are

also consistent with the notion that students are learning both facts and values from
Variations in Civic Development

25

Table 1b—Attention to politics of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics: 1996

Read national Watch/listen Talk about news Watch/listen

news at least to news with parents at to news

Number of once a week almost daily least once a week with parents

Student characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 41.1 1.0 39.6 1.0 27.9 0.9 39.9 1.0 

Grade in school

 9–10 7,429,457 37.6 1.3 40.7 1.3 25.8 1.2 42.3 1.3 

 11–12 6,759,978 44.9 1.4 38.4 1.4 30.1 1.3 37.2 1.4 

Gender

 Male 7,316,619 45.7 1.4 42.9 1.4 29.6 1.2 40.0 1.3 

 Female 6,872,816 36.2 1.4 36.1 1.4 26.0 1.2 39.8 1.4 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 9,688,268 43.4 1.2 37.6 1.1 29.7 1.0 38.9 1.1 

 Black, Hispanic, or other 4,501,167 36.1 1.7 43.8 1.8 23.9 1.6 42.1 1.8 

Academic performance

 A 4,399,420 46.2 1.7 41.7 1.7 34.0 1.6 43.5 1.7 

 B 5,577,888 38.7 1.5 38.2 1.5 26.5 1.3 38.5 1.5 

 C 3,473,951 39.9 2.0 40.7 2.1 23.4 1.8 39.3 2.0 

 D–F 738,176 34.4 4.5 31.7 4.0 22.2 3.9 32.1 4.1 

Language spoken most

at home by student

 English 13,332,729 41.5 1.0 39.4 1.0 28.3 0.9 39.7 1.0 

 Other 856,706 34.4 3.8 42.5 3.9 21.1 3.4 43.4 4.0 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

their history, civics, and other classes and from their involvement in school activities. For example, increases in tolerance scores may be associated with increased attention in 12th-grade American government courses to such important works on civil liberties as the Bill of Rights.14

Males and females also differ in a variety of ways with respect to civic development. As expected, male students know more political facts than female students (24.5 percent versus 14.3

 

14Technically, of course, it is also possible that differences between 9th–10th graders and 11th–12th graders are due to dropouts changing the underlying population. However, the multivariate tests below will show that grade in school continues to

matter even after controlling for variables that are closely associated with a tendency to stay in school or to drop out. Thus, it is

very unlikely that the grade differences are due exclusively to differential dropout of students with lower knowledge, skills, and

motivation.
Variations in Civic Development

26

percent),15 which, judging from differences in weekly news reading (45.7 percent versus 36.2 percent) and daily news watching (42.9 percent versus 36.1 percent) habits, may reflect the higher

level of attention given to politics among males than females. It is also consistent with the finding

that more male students say they understand politics (58.5 percent) than do female students (51.4

percent). Yet females, perhaps as a reflection of generally better writing skills as indicated by

NAEP assessments, tend to have more confidence in their ability to write to government officials

than males and are about as confident in their ability to speak at a public meetings (table 1c). Female students are also about as likely to say they believe their families have a say in what the government does (table 1d). Female and male students are also similar in respects to tolerating

diversity (table 1e).

Table 1c—Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics: 1996

I could write a letter I could make a statement

to government office at a public meeting

Number of Yes No Yes No

Student characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 93.4 0.5 6.6 0.5 82.4 0.7 17.6 0.7 

Grade in school

 9–10 7,429,457 91.9 0.7 8.1 0.7 79.2 1.1 20.8 1.1 

 11–12 6,759,978 94.9 0.6 5.1 0.6 86.0 1.0 14.0 1.0 

Gender

 Male 7,316,619 92.0 0.7 8.0 0.7 80.7 1.1 19.3 1.1 

 Female 6,872,816 94.8 0.6 5.2 0.6 84.3 1.0 15.7 1.0 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 9,688,268 93.5 0.6 6.5 0.6 82.3 0.9 17.7 0.9 

 Black, Hispanic, or other 4,501,167 93.1 0.9 6.9 0.9 82.8 1.4 17.2 1.4 

Academic performance

 A 4,399,420 95.6 0.7 4.4 0.7 86.2 1.2 13.9 1.2 

 B 5,577,888 93.1 0.8 6.9 0.8 80.7 1.2 19.3 1.2 

 C 3,473,951 91.3 1.1 8.8 1.1 81.1 1.6 18.9 1.6 

 D–F 738,176 91.3 2.2 8.7 2.2 79.4 3.7 20.6 3.7 

Language spoken most

at home by student

 English 13,332,729 93.5 0.5 6.5 0.5 82.6 0.8 17.5 0.8 

 Other 856,706 91.2 2.2 8.8 2.2 80.6 3.0 19.5 3.0 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

 

15Analysis of the NAEP data, which contains a more extensive set of knowledge items, confirms that males are slightly more

knowledgeable about politics than are females (Niemi and Junn 1998).
Variations in Civic Development

27

Table 1d—Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics: 1996

I understand politics My family has a say

or government in what government does

Number of Yes No Yes No

Student characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 55.0 1.0 45.0 1.0 64.2 1.0 35.8 1.0 

Grade in school

 9–10 7,429,457 49.6 1.3 50.4 1.3 63.7 1.3 36.3 1.3 

 11–12 6,759,978 61.0 1.4 39.0 1.4 64.8 1.4 35.2 1.4 

Gender

 Male 7,316,619 58.5 1.3 41.5 1.3 62.4 1.3 37.7 1.3 

 Female 6,872,816 51.4 1.4 48.6 1.4 66.2 1.3 33.8 1.3 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 9,688,268 58.1 1.2 41.9 1.2 64.5 1.1 35.6 1.1 

 Black, Hispanic, or other 4,501,167 48.4 1.8 51.6 1.8 63.8 1.7 36.2 1.7 

Academic performance

 A 4,399,420 64.8 1.7 35.3 1.7 70.0 1.6 30.0 1.6 

 B 5,577,888 53.6 1.2 46.4 1.2 63.3 1.5 36.7 1.5 

 C 3,473,951 46.9 2.0 53.2 2.0 60.2 2.0 39.9 2.0 

 D–F 738,176 47.2 4.6 52.8 4.6 56.3 4.5 43.7 4.5 

Language spoken most

at home by student

 English 13,332,729 56.1 1.0 43.9 1.0 64.7 1.0 35.3 1.0 

 Other 856,706 38.6 3.9 61.5 3.9 56.5 4.0 43.5 4.0 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

Large differences also exist between white, non-Hispanic students and other students.16

White students (24.2 percent) are much more likely to answer four or five political knowledge

items correctly than minority students (9.7 percent), which may in part be due to the fact that more

white students (43.4 percent) read news at least once a week than do minority students (36.1 percent). White students are also generally more confident in their ability to understand politics than

those from other racial–ethnic groups (58.1 percent versus 48.4 percent) (tables 1a, 1d). When it

comes to allowing controversial books in public libraries, 60.2 percent of whites accept the notion

 

16For ease of presentation, white will be used in place of white, non-Hispanic. Preliminary analyses did not reveal major differences between black and Hispanic students, so they are combined here along with a small number of students from other

minority groups.
Variations in Civic Development

28

Table 1e—Tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12, by student characteristics: 1996

People should be allowed to Controversial books could

speak against religion or church be kept in a public library

Number of Yes No Yes No

Student characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 88.3 0.6 11.7 0.6 56.9 1.0 43.1 1.0 

Grade in school

 9–10 7,429,457 86.4 0.9 13.6 0.9 51.3 1.3 48.7 1.3 

 11–12 6,759,978 90.3 0.8 9.7 0.8 63.1 1.4 37.0 1.4 

Gender

 Male 7,316,619 88.2 0.9 11.8 0.9 59.0 1.4 41.0 1.4 

 Female 6,872,816 88.3 0.9 11.7 0.9 54.7 1.4 45.3 1.4 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 9,688,268 89.9 0.7 10.1 0.7 60.2 1.1 39.8 1.1 

 Black, Hispanic, or other 4,501,167 84.8 1.3 15.2 1.3 49.7 1.8 50.3 1.8 

Academic performance

 A 4,399,420 88.3 1.1 11.7 1.1 59.8 1.7 40.2 1.7 

 B 5,577,888 88.9 0.9 11.1 0.9 56.5 1.5 43.5 1.5 

 C 3,473,951 86.7 1.4 13.3 1.4 54.6 2.0 45.4 2.0 

 D–F 738,176 90.3 2.4 9.7 2.4 53.2 4.6 46.8 4.6 

Language spoken most

at home by student

 English 13,332,729 89.1 0.6 10.9 0.6 57.6 1.0 42.4 1.0 

 Other 856,706 74.4 3.5 25.6 3.5 46.0 4.0 54.0 4.0 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

compared with 49.7 percent of minorities. Whites (89.9 percent) are also more likely to tolerate

speech against religion than Hispanics (81.5 percent), though they are about as likely as blacks

(88.4 percent) to tolerate such speech.17 Minorities are about as likely to trust in their participatory skills (table 1c) and just as often think their families have a say in what the government does.

 

17Blacks refers to black, non-Hispanics. This finding is an exception to the general finding of small differences between black

and Hispanic students. For an interpretation, see the discussion below of the results of the multivariate model for this item. The

standard errors for the estimates are: white, 0.7; black, 1.6; Hispanic, 2.7.
Variations in Civic Development

29

Finally, there are the expected positive relationships between student academic performance

on the one hand and political knowledge, news reading, discussing politics with parents, and efficacy on the other.18 However, the relationship to participatory skills, though positive, is relatively

weak, and no clear relationship to tolerance of diversity appears to exist (figure 6 and table 1e).

Figure 6—Percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported selected aspects of civic development,

Figure 6—by academic performance: 1996

NOTE: The standard errors for student academic performance level by answering two or more knowledge items correctly are:

A, 1.8; B, 1.6; C, 2.0; D–F, 4.4.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

67.1

50.0

36.3

29.5

95.6 93.1 91.3 91.3

70.0

63.3 60.2 56.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B C D–F A B C D–F A B C D–F

Student academic performance

Percent Two or more knowledge 

items correct

Could write a letter to government Family has say in government

 

18Academic performance is based on questions given to parents asking them how well they thought their child was doing in

school. They could respond that their child received mostly A’s, mostly B’s, mostly C’s, mostly D’s, or mostly F’s. The mostly

D’s and F’s were combined for this report.
Variations in Civic Development

30

Student Activities

Personal interests, along with activities that result from these interests, ought to play an important role in how much students know about politics and, possibly, in how their civic attitudes

develop. Of the measures available in the NHES:96, the ones that come closest to assessing students’ personal interests and activities are those that inquire about their news-gathering activities

or attention to politics. Thus, in the next set of tables (tables 2a–2e), the first two variables are

constructed from items we have already used as “dependent” or “column” variables in table 1b.

Table 2a—Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996

Students who gave correct answers to political items

Number of None to one Two to three Four to five

Student activities students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 49.1 1.0 31.3 0.9 19.6 0.8 

Attention to news

 Low 3,031,538 66.9 2.0 25.5 1.8 7.6 1.1 

 Medium 5,034,699 52.6 1.7 32.9 1.6 14.5 1.2 

 High 6,123,198 37.4 1.5 32.9 1.4 29.7 1.3 

Attention to news with parents

 Low 8,767,041 56.6 1.2 30.5 1.2 12.9 0.9 

 Medium 4,979,309 37.0 1.6 33.7 1.5 29.3 1.4 

 High 443,085 35.6 6.1 21.2 4.4 43.2 5.8 

Participation in school government

 No school government 1,481,575 68.1 2.8 24.9 2.6 7.0 1.6 

 Did not participate 10,547,186 48.3 1.1 31.8 1.1 19.9 0.9 

 Participated 2,160,674 40.2 2.5 33.4 2.3 26.4 2.1 

Participation in in-school or

 out-of-school activities

 None 2,687,445 70.7 2.1 21.0 1.8 8.3 1.2 

 One 4,534,460 53.6 1.7 30.5 1.6 15.9 1.2 

 Both 6,967,530 37.8 1.4 35.9 1.3 26.3 1.2 

Participation in community service

 No participation 7,024,634 57.7 1.4 28.9 1.2 13.3 0.9 

 Once or twice 3,221,479 43.2 2.0 34.2 1.9 22.6 1.8 

 Regular/under 35 hours 1,890,785 40.7 2.7 34.3 2.6 25.0 2.2 

 Regular/35 hours or above 2,052,537 36.5 2.5 32.4 2.4 31.1 2.4 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.
Variations in Civic Development

31

Table 2b—Attention to politics of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996

Read national Watch/listen Talk about news Watch/listen

news at least to news with parents at to news

Number of once a week almost daily least once a week with parents

Student activities students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 41.1 1.0 39.6 1.0 27.9 0.9 39.9 1.0 

Attention to news

 Low 3,031,538 (†) (†) (†) (†) 7.9 1.2 6.2 1.0 

 Medium 5,034,699 (†) (†) (†) (†) 18.8 1.3 36.7 1.6 

 High 6,123,198 (†) (†) (†) (†) 45.2 1.5 59.2 1.4 

Attention to news with parents

 Low 8,767,041 28.3 1.1 28.4 1.1 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Medium 4,979,309 60.5 1.6 55.8 1.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 High 443,085 75.1 5.3 79.2 4.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

Participation in school government

 No school government 1,481,575 30.6 2.8 39.0 3.0 19.2 2.4 36.3 3.0 

 Did not participate 10,547,186 41.1 1.1 38.8 1.1 27.0 1.0 39.5 1.1 

 Participated 2,160,674 48.0 2.5 44.0 2.5 38.1 2.4 44.3 2.5 

Participation in in-school or

 out-of-school activities

 None 2,687,445 31.5 2.1 37.0 2.2 17.2 1.7 34.5 2.2 

 One 4,534,460 40.0 1.7 38.9 1.7 25.6 1.5 38.2 1.7 

 Both 6,967,530 45.5 1.4 41.0 1.4 33.5 1.3 43.1 1.4 

Participation in community service

 No participation 7,024,634 37.7 1.4 38.3 1.4 22.4 1.2 38.5 1.4 

 Once or twice 3,221,479 39.4 2.0 37.3 2.0 28.1 1.8 39.0 2.0 

 Regular/under 35 hours 1,890,785 47.6 2.7 42.0 2.6 34.3 2.5 42.1 2.7 

 Regular/35 hours or above 2,052,537 49.4 2.6 45.6 2.6 40.3 2.5 44.1 2.6 

†Not applicable.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

The first variable, attention to news, was derived by combining questions asking how often the

student reads the news and how often he or she watches/listens to the news. The second variable,

attention to news with parents, was derived by combining questions asking students how often

they watch/listen to the news with parents and how often they discuss politics with their parents.

As it turns out, both how much overall attention students devote to the news and how much

they interact with parents over the news make dramatic differences in student political
Variations in Civic Development

32

knowledge and participation skill levels. Note, for example, that 99 percent of those who interacted most with their parents said they could write a letter to a government office, compared with

91 percent of those who interacted the least, and 96 percent said they could make a statement at a

public meeting, compared with 78 percent of those who interacted the least (table 2c).19 At the

same time, attention to the news and discussing news with parents are also related to efficacy (table 2d). However, they are related to increased tolerance only through their association with accepting controversial books in public libraries (table 2e).

Student activities in a more conventional sense—i.e., student government and other inschool and out-of-school activities—are also related to civic development among high school students. The relationship to student government is unsurprising, yet one aspect of it deserves comment. When students report that there is no student government, they rank especially low on

almost every civic development item, sometimes even when compared with students who have the

opportunity to participate in student government, but do not (figure 7). It appears as though having a student government enhances civic dispositions even among students who choose not to

Figure 7—Percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported selected aspects of civic development,

Figure 7—by participation in student government: 1996

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component.

48.0

41.1

30.6

65.1

54.7

42.8

60.1 57.8

45.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Participates No

government

Participates No

government

Participates No

government

Participation in student government

Percent

Reads news weekly Understands politics Tolerates controversial books

Does not 

participate

Does not 

participate

Does not 

participate

 

19Of course, the two attention variables are themselves closely related (table 2b), raising the question for later as to whether

they have independent effects even on knowledge levels.
Variations in Civic Development

33

participate. Participation in other kinds of school activities such as sports, or non-school activities

such as scouting, even though it may not be related to politics, is also associated with greater political knowledge, political attentiveness, participatory skills, and political efficacy.

Writing letters, speaking in front of groups, and debating are activities that are often included in classroom experiences. As expected, writing a letter in class is positively associated with

confidence in the ability to write a letter to a government office. Also as expected, making a

speech in class and engaging in class debates are positively related to confidence in the ability to

make a statement at a public meeting (table 2c).

As suggested by proponents of community service and by the relationships found for student

activities, participation in community service is also positively related to civic development—

again, with the exception of tolerance.20 The relationship between community service and political

knowledge is noteworthy given theoretical expectations. Earlier theoretical work suggested that

there should be no connection between general community service and political knowledge. Like

political knowledge, increases in community service participation are also associated with increases in personal efficacy as measured by the question asking if the respondent understands

politics. Part of the explanation as to why community service is related to increased political

knowledge may be due in part to the fact that those who participate more are also those who pay

the most attention to the news. The multivariate models that follow will help to begin to untangle

some of these relationships as well as help test some of the less pronounced relationships between

community service and civic development evident in the bivariate tables.

 

20Though related to three of the four variables used to study attentiveness, community service does not show a clear relationship to watching the news with parents.
Variations in Civic Development

34

Table 2c—Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996

I could write a letter I could make a statement

 to government office at a public meeting

Number of Yes No Yes No

Student activities students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 93.4 0.5 6.6 0.5 82.4 0.7 17.6 0.7 

Attention to news

 Low 3,031,538 88.2 1.3 11.8 1.3 74.0 1.8 26.0 1.8 

 Medium 5,034,699 92.6 0.8 7.4 0.8 83.0 1.2 17.0 1.2 

 High 6,123,198 96.5 0.5 3.5 0.5 86.2 1.1 13.8 1.1 

Attention to news with parents

 Low 8,767,041 91.2 0.7 8.8 0.7 78.3 1.0 21.8 1.0 

 Medium 4,979,309 96.6 0.6 3.4 0.6 88.6 1.0 11.4 1.0 

 High 443,085 99.1 0.7 0.9 0.7 95.8 2.3 4.2 2.3 

Participation in school government

 No school government 1,481,575 90.7 1.6 9.3 1.6 73.3 2.6 26.7 2.6 

 Did not participate 10,547,186 92.8 0.6 7.2 0.6 82.1 0.9 17.9 0.9 

 Participated 2,160,674 97.8 0.8 2.2 0.8 90.3 1.5 9.7 1.5 

Participation in in-school or

 out-of-school activities

 None 2,687,445 89.0 1.5 11.0 1.5 76.9 1.9 23.1 1.9 

 One 4,534,460 92.7 0.9 7.3 0.9 79.9 1.4 20.1 1.4 

 Both 6,967,530 95.5 0.5 4.5 0.5 86.2 1.0 13.8 1.0 

In school, wrote letter to

someone you did not know

 No 9,841,030 92.1 0.6 7.9 0.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Yes 4,348,405 96.2 0.6 3.8 0.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

In school, gave a speech

or oral report

 No 3,483,559 (†) (†) (†) (†) 74.2 1.8 25.8 1.8 

 Yes 10,705,876 (†) (†) (†) (†) 85.1 0.8 14.9 0.8 

In school, took part in a

debate or discussion

 No 5,514,606 (†) (†) (†) (†) 75.4 1.4 24.6 1.4 

 Yes 8,674,829 (†) (†) (†) (†) 86.9 0.9 13.1 0.9 

Participation in community service

 No participation 7,024,634 91.4 0.8 8.6 0.8 77.2 1.2 22.8 1.2 

 Once or twice 3,221,479 95.4 0.7 4.6 0.7 85.1 1.5 14.9 1.5 

 Regular/under 35 hours 1,890,785 95.1 1.1 4.9 1.1 88.8 1.5 11.2 1.5 

 Regular/35 hours or above 2,052,537 95.4 1.1 4.6 1.1 90.1 1.5 9.9 1.5 

†Not applicable.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.
Variations in Civic Development

35

Table 2d—Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996

I understand politics My family has a say

or government in what government does

Number of Yes No Yes No

Student activities students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 55.0 1.0 45.0 1.0 64.2 1.0 35.8 1.0 

Attention to news

 Low 3,031,538 42.8 2.1 57.2 2.1 57.6 2.1 42.4 2.1 

 Medium 5,034,699 51.0 1.7 49.0 1.7 63.1 1.6 36.9 1.6 

 High 6,123,198 64.4 1.4 35.6 1.4 68.5 1.4 31.6 1.4 

Attention to news with parents

 Low 8,767,041 49.2 1.3 50.8 1.3 60.7 1.2 39.3 1.2 

 Medium 4,979,309 64.0 1.6 36.0 1.6 69.7 1.5 30.3 1.5 

 High 443,085 70.3 5.9 29.7 5.9 72.9 5.6 27.1 5.6 

Participation in school government

 No school government 1,481,575 42.8 3.0 57.2 3.0 60.3 3.0 39.7 3.0 

 Did not participate 10,547,186 54.7 1.1 45.3 1.1 62.7 1.1 37.3 1.1 

 Participated 2,160,674 65.1 2.4 34.9 2.4 74.3 2.2 25.7 2.2 

Participation in in-school or

 out-of-school activities

 None 2,687,445 41.3 2.3 58.7 2.3 55.0 2.3 45.0 2.3 

 One 4,534,460 53.3 1.7 46.7 1.7 61.9 1.7 38.1 1.7 

 Both 6,967,530 61.5 1.4 38.5 1.4 69.3 1.3 30.7 1.3 

Participation in community service

 No participation 7,024,634 48.5 1.4 51.5 1.4 60.6 1.4 39.4 1.4 

 Once or twice 3,221,479 56.6 2.1 43.4 2.1 65.8 2.0 34.2 2.0 

 Regular/under 35 hours 1,890,785 63.5 2.6 36.5 2.6 69.1 2.5 30.9 2.5 

 Regular/35 hours or above 2,052,537 67.2 2.4 32.8 2.4 69.6 2.4 30.4 2.4 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.
Variations in Civic Development

36

Table 2e—Political tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12, by student activities: 1996

People should be allowed to Controversial books could

speak against religion or church be kept in a public library

Number of

Student activities students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 88.3 0.6 11.7 0.6 56.9 1.0 43.1 1.0 

Attention to news

 Low 3,031,538 87.9 1.3 12.1 1.3 55.6 2.1 44.4 2.1 

 Medium 5,034,699 86.9 1.1 13.2 1.1 51.2 1.7 48.8 1.7 

 High 6,123,198 89.6 0.9 10.4 0.9 62.2 1.4 37.8 1.4 

Attention to news with parents

 Low 8,767,041 87.8 0.8 12.2 0.8 54.3 1.3 45.7 1.3 

 Medium 4,979,309 89.1 1.0 10.9 1.0 60.7 1.6 39.3 1.6 

 High 443,085 88.4 3.4 11.6 3.4 66.1 5.7 33.9 5.7 

Participation in school government

 No school government 1,481,575 85.8 2.0 14.2 2.0 45.9 3.0 54.1 3.0 

 Did not participate 10,547,186 88.5 0.7 11.5 0.7 57.8 1.1 42.2 1.1 

 Participated 2,160,674 88.8 1.5 11.2 1.5 60.1 2.4 39.9 2.4 

Participation in in-school or

 out-of-school activities

 None 2,687,445 86.1 1.7 13.9 1.7 56.3 2.3 43.7 2.3 

 One 4,534,460 88.6 1.1 11.5 1.1 53.2 1.7 46.9 1.7 

 Both 6,967,530 88.9 0.8 11.1 0.8 59.6 1.4 40.4 1.4 

Participation in community service

 No participation 7,024,634 87.1 1.0 12.9 1.0 55.7 1.4 44.3 1.4 

 Once or twice 3,221,479 89.8 1.2 10.2 1.2 55.3 2.0 44.7 2.0 

 Regular/under 35 hours 1,890,785 88.4 1.7 11.6 1.7 60.6 2.6 39.4 2.6 

 Regular/35 hours or above 2,052,537 89.5 1.4 10.5 1.4 60.0 2.5 40.0 2.5 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

Yes No Yes No
Variations in Civic Development

37

Family and School Characteristics

The correlates of civic development noted above are attributes of the students themselves.

Additional correlates are found in the students’ families and schools (tables 3a–3e). These tables

require a slightly different structure. The first one to three characteristics in each table are the parent version of the student variable(s) shown in that table, and the relationship is shown only for

like items. Thus, for example, the first entry in table 3b is how often parents say they read the national news, and the only relationship shown is that with the identical student item.

What is of interest in this part of the tables is that in every case, with the exception of writing a letter to a government official, parental traits and dispositions are positively associated with

those of their offspring. Among parents who hardly ever read the national news, for example, only

29.5 percent of their high school-aged children read the news at least once a week; among parents

who themselves read the paper that frequently, the percentage among students jumps to roughly

40. For the most part, other aspects of attentiveness are similar. In addition to parents’ attention

to politics, parental knowledge, participation skills, efficacy, and tolerance are positively related to

the same traits in students. Yet it should also be noted that the relationships are not exceedingly

strong. For example, among parents who say that a controversial book should be kept in a public

library, 63 percent of their children agree; among parents who would remove the book, 49 percent—just 14 percent fewer—would opt for keeping the book (table 3e).

Relationships of this magnitude led socialization researchers in the 1960s and 1970s to conclude that parental influence, aside from its effect on political partisanship, was rather weak, or

that it existed only in limited circumstances, such as when parents felt especially strongly about

some concern (Beck 1977, 122–27). It will be important to return to this point in the multivariate

section.

Student civic development appears to be highest among students with the most highly educated parents, and lowest among students with the least educated parents. It should not be surprising if parents who are more highly educated have children who are more knowledgeable about

politics, more attentive to political information, more confident in their participatory skills, and

more efficacious politically. For the most part, these relationships do hold, with two exceptions.

With respect to student attention to politics, there is a positive relationship with reading national

news, as one might expect, but students with less educated parents are about as likely as those

with more highly educated parents to watch the news and to do so with their parents (figure 8 and

table 3b). As noted earlier, the latter form of news attentiveness does not require the same level of

cognitive development that reading and discussing news does, so the link between
Variations in Civic Development

38

Figure 8—Percent of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported selected aspects of civic development,

Figure 8—by highest level of parental education: 1996

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

43.1

31.2

27.2

21.3 18.7

45.5

38.8 40.1

35.4

45.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Graduate

school

Voctech/some

college

Less than

high school

Graduate

school

Voctech/some

college

Less than

high school

Highest level of parent education

Percent

Talks about news with parents weekly Watches news with parents daily

College 

graduate

Less than 

high

school

High

school 

graduate

Votech/

some 

college

Graduate 

school

College 

graduate

Less than 

high

school

High

school 

graduate

Votech/

some 

college

Graduate 

school

parental education and student behavior might be expected to be weaker. Parent education is also

related to both tolerance items (table 3e).

As parent attention to news, a combined measure of the items about reading and watching

the news, improves, so too do most of the student measures (speaking against religion being an

exception). In particular, parental news attentiveness shows relatively strong positive relationships

to student news attentiveness, political knowledge, and student confidence in their ability to understand politics.

The student’s role in family decisions is most closely related to student dispositions that involve the family itself and to student confidence in public speaking.21 With respect to attentiveness

to politics, for example, student feelings about their role in the family are highly correlated with

the frequency of discussions about news with parents (table 3b). In contrast, the perceived openness of the school is generally uncorrelated with civic development.22

 

21Student perceptions of their role in family decisions also show positive correlations with the other measures of civic development with the exception of tolerating controversial books in public libraries.

22It should be pointed out that the measure of school openness does not emphasize students’ involvement in school decision

making (see the Survey Methodology and Data Reliability section for a full description of this variable).
Variations in Civic Development

39

Finally, there are significant differences in the civic development of students in various types

of schools. For instance, students in public schools are less knowledgeable about politics, report

lower participatory skills, feel less politically efficacious, and are less tolerant (at least in terms of

tolerating controversial books in public libraries). Students in public schools are similar to private

school students only in the extent to which they follow national news and discuss the news with

their parents.
Variations in Civic Development

40

Table 3a—Political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school characteristics: 1996

Students who gave correct answers to political items

Family and school Number of None to one Two to three Four to five

 characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 49.1 1.0 31.3 0.9 19.6 0.8 

Number of correct answers given

 by parents to political items

 None to one 4,495,588 67.4 1.8 25.0 1.6 7.6 1.1 

 Two to three 4,686,730 51.5 1.8 31.6 1.5 16.9 1.2 

 Four to five 5,007,117 30.4 1.5 36.8 1.5 32.7 1.5 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 1,375,087 75.1 3.1 20.0 2.8 4.9 1.7 

 High school only 4,189,293 61.4 1.8 27.5 1.7 11.1 1.1 

 Votech/some college 4,081,565 48.9 1.8 34.4 1.7 16.7 1.3 

 College graduate 2,188,477 34.9 2.3 36.5 2.4 28.7 2.2 

 Graduate school 2,355,013 25.7 2.0 34.7 2.1 39.6 2.2 

Parents’ attention to news

 Low 578,417 69.5 4.7 28.0 4.7 2.5 1.1 

 Medium 3,697,447 59.0 1.9 26.4 1.7 14.6 1.4 

 High 9,913,571 44.2 1.2 33.4 1.1 22.4 0.9 

Student role in family decisions

 Hardly ever 944,790 54.9 3.8 31.5 3.5 13.7 2.5 

 Sometimes 7,114,055 52.1 1.4 30.4 1.3 17.5 1.1 

 Often 6,130,590 44.7 1.5 32.4 1.4 22.9 1.2 

School type

 Public 12,886,023 50.7 1.0 30.8 0.9 18.6 0.8 

 Private 1,303,412 33.4 3.0 37.2 3.1 29.4 2.7 

Student perception of school

 openness

 Low 937,381 50.7 4.0 31.4 3.7 17.9 2.8 

 Medium 11,009,465 49.2 1.1 31.2 1.0 19.6 0.9 

 High 2,242,589 47.8 2.5 32.0 2.3 20.3 1.9 

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement
Variations in Civic Development

41

Table 3b—Attention to politics of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school characteristics: 1996

Read national Watch/listen Talk about news Watch/listen

news at least to news with parents at to news

Family and school Number of once a week almost daily least once a week with parents

 characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 41.1 1.0 39.6 1.0 27.9 0.9 39.9 1.0 

Parents read national news

 Hardly ever 3,718,468 29.5 1.8 (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) (†)

 At least once a month 1,393,119 34.0 3.1 (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) (†)

 At least once a week 3,941,653 40.2 1.8 (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Almost everyday 5,136,195 52.1 1.6 (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) (†)

Parents watch/listen to news

 Hardly ever 581,798 (†) (†) 26.5 4.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 At least once a month 260,374 (†) (†) 33.8 6.7 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 At least once a week 2,271,950 (†) (†) 29.6 2.2 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Almost everyday 11,075,313 (†) (†) 42.5 1.1 (†) (†) (†) (†)

Parents say child watches/

 listens to news with parents

 No 5,492,120 (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) 26.1 1.4 

 Yes 8,697,315 (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) (†) 48.6 1.3 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 1,375,087 32.1 3.3 42.8 3.5 18.7 2.7 45.3 3.6 

 High school only 4,189,293 35.6 1.8 38.7 1.8 21.3 1.5 35.4 1.8 

 Votech/some college 4,081,565 39.8 1.8 38.1 1.8 27.2 1.6 40.1 1.8 

 College graduate 2,188,477 46.2 2.4 38.8 2.4 31.2 2.2 38.8 2.4 

 Graduate school 2,355,013 53.5 2.2 42.6 2.2 43.1 2.2 45.5 2.2 

Parents’ attention to news

 Low 578,417 23.7 4.8 25.0 4.6 10.9 2.9 20.5 4.4 

 Medium 3,697,447 30.9 1.8 39.4 1.9 22.9 1.7 37.9 1.9 

 High 9,913,571 45.9 1.2 40.5 1.1 30.7 1.1 41.8 1.1 

Student role in family decisions

 Little 944,790 33.1 3.5 37.4 3.7 12.5 2.2 30.8 3.5 

 Some 7,114,055 37.8 1.4 39.0 1.4 23.9 1.2 37.7 1.4 

 A lot 6,130,590 46.1 1.5 40.6 1.4 34.8 1.4 43.8 1.5 

School type

 Public 12,886,023 40.8 1.0 39.3 1.0 27.7 0.9 40.2 1.0 

 Private 1,303,412 43.6 3.1 42.9 3.1 29.5 2.8 36.7 3.0 

Student perception of school openness

 Low 937,381 38.9 3.8 37.6 3.8 24.7 3.3 31.3 3.6 

 Medium 11,009,465 40.9 1.1 38.8 1.1 27.4 1.0 39.7 1.1 

 High 2,242,589 43.1 2.4 44.5 2.4 31.6 2.2 44.4 2.5 

†Not applicable.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.
Variations in Civic Development

42

Table 3c—Participation skills of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school characteristics: 1996

I could write a letter I could make a statement

to government office at a public meeting

Family and school Number of Yes No Yes No

 characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 93.4 0.5 6.6 0.5 82.4 0.7 17.6 0.7 

Parents say they could write a 

 letter to government office

 No 674,224 88.4 2.8 11.6 2.8 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Yes 13,515,211 93.6 0.5 6.4 0.5 (†) (†) (†) (†)

Parents say they could make

 statement at a public meeting

 No 1,509,022 (†) (†) (†) (†) 72.8 2.7 27.2 2.7 

 Yes 12,680,413 (†) (†) (†) (†) 83.6 0.8 16.4 0.8 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 1,375,087 91.5 1.8 8.5 1.8 77.9 2.9 22.1 2.9 

 High school only 4,189,293 91.5 1.0 8.6 1.0 80.1 1.5 20.0 1.5 

 Votech/some college 4,081,565 93.6 0.8 6.4 0.8 83.7 1.3 16.3 1.3 

 College graduate 2,188,477 95.3 1.0 4.8 1.0 83.4 1.9 16.6 1.9 

 Graduate school 2,355,013 95.7 0.9 4.3 0.9 86.2 1.6 13.8 1.6 

Parents’ attention to news

 Low 578,417 88.2 3.2 11.8 3.2 72.8 4.6 27.3 4.6 

 Medium 3,697,447 91.3 1.1 8.7 1.1 80.4 1.5 19.6 1.5 

 High 9,913,571 94.4 0.5 5.6 0.5 83.8 0.9 16.2 0.9 

Student role in family decisions

 Hardly ever 944,790 88.8 2.2 11.3 2.2 71.2 3.4 28.8 3.4 

 Sometimes 7,114,055 92.1 0.7 7.9 0.7 79.8 1.1 20.2 1.1 

 Often 6,130,590 95.6 0.6 4.4 0.6 87.2 1.0 12.8 1.0 

School type

 Public 12,886,023 93.1 0.5 6.9 0.5 81.7 0.8 18.3 0.8 

 Private 1,303,412 96.4 1.0 3.6 1.0 89.6 1.8 10.4 1.8 

Student perception of school openness

 Low 937,381 94.3 1.4 5.7 1.4 86.6 2.2 13.4 2.2 

 Medium 11,009,465 93.1 0.6 6.9 0.6 81.4 0.9 18.6 0.9 

 High 2,242,589 94.3 1.2 5.7 1.2 85.9 1.7 14.1 1.7 

†Not applicable.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.
Variations in Civic Development

43

Table 3d—Political efficacy of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school characteristics: 1996

I understand politics My family has a say

or government in what government does

Family and school Number of

 characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 55.0 1.0 45.0 1.0 64.2 1.0 35.8 1.0 

Parents say they understand politics

 No 5,535,925 46.0 1.6 54.0 1.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Yes 8,653,510 60.9 1.2 39.2 1.2 (†) (†) (†) (†)

Parents say their family has a 

 say in what government does

 No 6,389,819 (†) (†) (†) (†) 57.8 1.5 42.2 1.5 

 Yes 7,799,616 (†) (†) (†) (†) 69.5 1.2 30.5 1.2 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 1,375,087 40.6 3.5 59.4 3.5 52.4 3.6 47.7 3.6 

 High school only 4,189,293 48.4 1.9 51.6 1.9 58.0 1.9 42.0 1.9 

 Votech/some college 4,081,565 54.4 1.8 45.6 1.8 65.9 1.7 34.1 1.7 

 College graduate 2,188,477 59.2 2.4 40.8 2.4 68.9 2.2 31.1 2.2 

 Graduate school 2,355,013 72.6 2.0 27.4 2.0 75.1 1.9 24.9 1.9 

Parents’ attention to news

 Low 578,417 40.5 5.0 59.5 5.0 49.6 5.2 50.4 5.2 

 Medium 3,697,447 49.2 2.0 50.8 2.0 60.1 1.9 39.9 1.9 

 High 9,913,571 58.1 1.1 41.9 1.1 66.6 1.1 33.4 1.1 

Student role in family decisions

 Hardly ever 944,790 49.0 3.8 51.0 3.8 50.6 3.8 49.4 3.8 

 Sometimes 7,114,055 51.9 1.4 48.1 1.4 61.3 1.4 38.7 1.4 

 Often 6,130,590 59.6 1.4 40.4 1.4 69.8 1.3 30.2 1.3 

School type

 Public 12,886,023 53.8 1.0 46.2 1.0 63.3 1.0 36.7 1.0 

 Private 1,303,412 67.0 2.9 33.0 2.9 73.3 2.8 26.7 2.8 

Student perception of school openness

 Low 937,381 58.5 3.9 41.5 3.9 56.1 4.0 43.9 4.0 

 Medium 11,009,465 55.0 1.1 45.0 1.1 64.7 1.1 35.4 1.1 

 High 2,242,589 53.7 2.5 46.3 2.5 65.6 2.4 34.4 2.4 

†Not applicable.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

Yes No Yes No
Variations in Civic Development

44

Table 3e—Political tolerance of students in grades 9 through 12, by family and school characteristics: 1996

People should be allowed to Controversial books could

speak against religion or church be kept in a public library

Family and school Number of Yes No Yes No

 characteristics students Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

 Total 14,189,435 88.3 0.6 11.7 0.6 56.9 1.0 43.1 1.0 

Parents say people should be

 allowed to speak against religion

 No 1,937,630 77.3 2.3 22.7 2.3 (†) (†) (†) (†)

 Yes 12,251,805 90.0 0.6 10.0 0.6 (†) (†) (†) (†)

Parents say controversial books

 could be kept in a public library

 No 6,068,505 (†) (†) (†) (†) 49.3 1.5 50.7 1.5 

 Yes 8,120,930 (†) (†) (†) (†) 62.6 1.2 37.5 1.2 

Parents’ education

 Less than high school 1,375,087 80.1 3.0 19.9 3.0 47.0 3.6 53.0 3.6 

 High school only 4,189,293 88.6 1.1 11.4 1.1 52.6 1.9 47.4 1.9 

 Votech/some college 4,081,565 87.4 1.2 12.6 1.2 54.4 1.8 45.6 1.8 

 College graduate 2,188,477 90.3 1.4 9.7 1.4 65.5 2.3 34.5 2.3 

 Graduate school 2,355,013 92.1 1.1 7.9 1.1 66.6 2.1 33.4 2.1 

Parents’ attention to news

 Low 578,417 91.9 2.5 8.1 2.5 38.5 4.8 61.6 4.8 

 Medium 3,697,447 85.5 1.4 14.5 1.4 53.8 2.0 46.2 2.0 

 High 9,913,571 89.1 0.7 10.9 0.7 59.1 1.1 40.9 1.1 

Student role in family decisions

 Hardly ever 944,790 86.6 2.5 13.4 2.5 57.5 3.7 42.5 3.7 

 Sometimes 7,114,055 86.7 1.0 13.3 1.0 55.4 1.4 44.6 1.4 

 Often 6,130,590 90.3 0.8 9.7 0.8 58.5 1.5 41.5 1.5 

School type

 Public 12,886,023 88.0 0.7 12.0 0.7 56.0 1.0 44.0 1.0 

 Private 1,303,412 90.9 1.6 9.1 1.6 65.4 3.0 34.7 3.0 

Student perception of school openness

 Low 937,381 85.4 2.7 14.6 2.7 59.0 3.9 41.0 3.9 

 Medium 11,009,465 88.6 0.7 11.4 0.7 57.8 1.1 42.3 1.1 

 High 2,242,589 87.7 1.7 12.3 1.7 51.8 2.5 48.2 2.5 

†Not applicable.

NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.
45

Multivariate Tests of the Relationship Between Student,

Family, and School Characteristics and Civic Development

Having discovered a large number of student, family, and school characteristics and activities that are related to civic development, it is important to see whether some of these associations

are reduced or disappear altogether when several factors are considered at once. Because of the

pervasive, though modest, relationships between student measures of civic development and those

of their parents, along with earlier research findings indicating a limited role for parents in student

civic development, these relationships are of particular interest. For similar reasons, the relationship between student development and their school experiences deserves attention. Finally, though

there have been claims that a strong relationship should exist between community service and student civic development, only limited studies of the possible relationship exist. Hence, a third area

of special interest is whether or not participation in community service continues to show a relationship with some of the measures of civic development.

To examine these possibilities, multivariate analyses were performed—multivariate logistic

regression when the civic development variable was dichotomous, and ordinary least squares

when the dependent variable was an ordered, multicategory variable.23 The results of these multivariate models are shown in tables 4–8. It is easiest to interpret the results in terms of broad patterns, and to do this, it makes most sense to group the findings in terms of the dependent

variables, beginning with political knowledge (table 4). Table 5 focuses on attention to politics,

table 6 presents results for political participation skills, table 7 shows regressions for political efficacy, and table 8 looks at factors associated with tolerance of diversity. In order to assist readers

in understanding this more complex methodology, the Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

 

23For ease of presentation, the political knowledge item was presented using three categories in tables 1a, 2a, and 3a. In the

regression analyses, all six categories were used (0 correct, 1 correct, 2 correct, 3 correct, 4 correct, or 5 correct). The questions

about reading the news, watching the news, and discussing the news with parents were displayed using two categories in tables

1b, 2b, and 3b for the same reason. In the regression analyses, all four response categories were used (almost every day, at least

once a week, at least once a month, or hardly ever).

With one exception, all of the independent variables are scored 0,1 if a dichotomy, or as a numerical variable if ordered and

multicategory. The exception is community service. In order to identify as precisely as possible the nature of potential effects,

this variable was entered as a series of 0,1 variables for each of three levels of participation. Of necessity, one category is excluded. This is the category representing no participation; it serves as a baseline against which the other categories are judged.

To facilitate a succinct table presentation, grade in school was shown using two categories in tables 1a through 1e. All four

grades are tested separately in the regression analyses.
Multivariate Tests

46

section contains a discussion regarding how to interpret multivariate analyses. This discussion is

referred to at appropriate places below.

Political Knowledge

As the tables in the previous section showed, numerous variables are related to the student

ability to answer factual questions about politics. That remains the case in the multivariate analysis

as well. First of all, most of the student characteristics discussed above are related to student political knowledge after other factors are taken into account. Both student grade in school and academic performance are strongly and positively related to knowledge (table 4). While perhaps

expected, it is important to see confirmation of this given criticism of schools in general and of

civics classes in particular (see above). Though this level of analysis does not permit precise identification of the sources of grade and performance differences, the results do suggest that schools

can play a positive role in developing good citizens, and in this sense is consistent with recent research based on NAEP (Niemi and Junn 1998). In addition to these characteristics, other background factors that are related to knowledge levels include gender and race–ethnicity. Confirming

earlier research, males remain more knowledgeable than females even after controlling for characteristics such as the amount of attention paid to the news. White students are also more knowledgeable about the facts of government.24

Student activities and behavior are positively correlated with political knowledge levels. For

instance, paying attention to the news is clearly related to greater knowledge, which is understandable when one recalls that three of the five factual questions addressed contemporary politics. Note as well that, independent of overall levels of attention, the more often students discuss

or watch the news with parents, the more they know about politics. Increased exposure to student

government is also associated with higher knowledge scores, as is participation in other in- and

out-of-school activities.

The evidence regarding participation in community service is suggestive, but only sustained

participation is clearly associated with greater political knowledge. Those who participated regularly for more than 35 hours altogether were more knowledgeable on the objective knowledge

test. Though some earlier research suggests that student participation in community service

 

24Civics classes and other features of the school may have differential effects on various kinds of students and subject matter.

This possibility is explored in some detail in Niemi and Junn (1998).
Multivariate Tests

47

should have only the effect of increasing knowledge related to the service activity, this finding indicates that participation may have broader educational effects than once considered.25

Table 4—OLS regression predicting the political knowledge of students in grades 9 through 12: 1996

Number of correct answers student gave to political items

Independent variables b s.e.

 Intercept -1.61* 0.25

Student characteristics

 Grade in school 0.27* 0.02

 Male 0.53* 0.05

 Black, Hispanic, or other -0.28* 0.06

 Academic performance 0.32* 0.03

 English spoken most at home by student 0.13 0.10

Student activities

 Attention to news 0.24* 0.04

 Attention to news with parents 0.25* 0.05

 Participation in school government 0.16* 0.05

 Participation in in-school/out-of-school activities 0.15* 0.04

 Participation in community service

 Once or twice 0.09 0.07

 Regular/under 35 hours 0.11 0.08

 Regular/35 hours or more 0.23* 0.09

Family and school characteristics

 Political knowledge of parents 0.15* 0.02

 Parents’ education 0.16* 0.03

 Student role in family decisions -0.02 0.04

 Public school -0.20* 0.09

 Student perception of school openness -0.06 0.06

 R2

0.34* 

*p<0.05

NOTE: For an explanation of the coefficients, see the section on Survey Methodology and Data Reliability.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement

Component.

 

25Readers should keep in mind that the tests conducted in this report are not sufficient to support statements of causality. It is

possible that students with more political knowledge tend to be those most likely to volunteer most regularly. One effort to

control for the effects of volunteering is made below in the section on service incorporated into the curriculum.
Multivariate Tests

48

Several family and school characteristics also remain associated with the political knowledge

item in the multivariate test. For example, student knowledge rises with increases in the highest

level of education obtained by parents. Even after controlling for parental education, higher parental knowledge scores are related to higher student knowledge scores. This attests to the importance of parents in the political socialization process. Finally, table 4 shows that even after

accounting for so many other variables, public school students were significantly below private

school students in their levels of knowledge.

In assessing the relative contributions of the various predictors of political knowledge (and

of the other measures of civic development that follow), it is important to note the magnitude of

the relationships in addition to their statistical significance. To do so, one needs to take into account the measurement of the independent variables. Thus, for example, one needs to recall that

attention to the news (by itself and with parents), participation in student government and other

activities, political knowledge of parents, and parental education all have multiple categories.

While the largest coefficient in table 4 is for gender, other characteristics are actually associated

with similar or even greater variations in knowledge. For example, in comparing students with

low (0) versus high (2) levels of attention to the news, the difference is double the .24 coefficient,

or nearly as large as that between males and females.26 With this in mind, note especially the coefficients associated with parents’ knowledge. Even though parents’ knowledge has one of the lowest coefficients in the table, when one multiplies the coefficient by the number of increments in

levels of knowledge (5), it suggests a relationship to student knowledge that is as equal to that of

most of the other variables in the model. (For a fuller discussion of how to interpret the OLS results, please see the multivariate analysis description in the Survey Methodology and Data Reliability section of this report.)

Attention to Politics

The relationships between attentiveness to news and the various predictors are, in some respects, similar to those for political knowledge (table 5). They are complicated, however, by differences between newspapers and television and differences between attention per se and

attention with parents. Thus, for example, students in higher grades read more about national

news than do students in lower grades. But students in all grades under study are about as likely

to follow the news on television and talk with their parents about it, and students in higher grades

are actually less likely to report watching news with their parents than students in lower grades.

As discussed earlier, many of the differences between news reading and news watching may be

 

26See the Survey Methodology and Data Reliability section for a brief description of how to interpret coefficients in the multivariate models.
Multivariate Tests

49

due to the nature of the media and to how these interact with the cognitive development of students. It is noteworthy, however, that student academic performance and parental education

clearly do not capture much variation in news reading and news watching/listening.

Student activities—apart from those related to attentiveness itself—do not seem to have an

across-the-board relationship to newsgathering. Yet participation in activities other than student

government does appear to stimulate discussions with parents about the news. In particular,

regular community service, even of moderate duration (less than 35 hours), shows a clear relationship to such discussions. Though seldom alluded to in literature studying the possible effects

of community service, such service may generate new kinds of experiences for students, ones that

are unlike day-to-day activities in school and with peers and more likely to involve adult activities.

In confronting these kinds of activities, students may feel a greater need for discussion with their

parents or simply find that they have more in common to talk about. In any event, given the relationships between attention to the news with parents and other indicators (especially knowledge

and participatory skills), student community service could have indirect relationships in addition

to the direct relationships observed here.

As with political knowledge, student attention to politics is linked to corresponding parental

traits. If parents often read the national news, so do their children; if parents watch the news, so

do their offspring. And, as shown in the “student activity” part of table 5, general attentiveness to

the news and talking about it with parents or watching it with them are themselves related.27

Political Participation Skills

As might be expected, the relationships between independent variables and political participation skills practically mirror those associated with political knowledge (table 6). But what differences do exist are striking, both for their conformance to theoretical expectations and for their

implications with respect to democratic participation. Grade in school, for example, makes an important difference to skills, as it did for knowledge; students in higher grades are more likely to

trust their ability to write letters and to make statements at public meetings. In contrast to the case

of knowledge, however, academic performance and minority status are unrelated to both of these

skills, as is parental education. The fact that minority status, academic performance, and parental

education are not significantly related to perceived skill levels suggests that minorities, students

who perform poorly, and students from less educated families see themselves as just as able as

others to express their views to the government and at public meetings. Female students, though

 

27One relationship in table 5 is of a different sort. The strong coefficient for “parents say their child watches/listens to news

with parents” is really a measure of the extent to which parents and children agree about the child’s behavior, and it suggests

that parent and student perceptions of interaction match fairly well. In this one instance, the parents’ reports are about the students, not about themselves.
Multivariate Tests

50

less knowledgeable about politics than males, tend to feel more comfortable writing to government officials. (For a fuller discussion of how to interpret the logistic regression results, please

refer to the Survey Methodology and Data Reliability section of this report.)
Multivariate Tests

51
Multivariate Tests

52

Student activities also show similar relationships to participation skills as they did to political knowledge. The more attention students paid to national news, the more they followed the

news along with their parents, and the more they participated in student government, the greater

their self-reported ability to make statements at public meetings. In addition, student classroom

experiences with letter writing, public speaking, and debates were positively related to confidence

in writing public officials and speaking at meetings.

Participation in community service is unrelated to skill level in one instance and notably related in the other. The difference between the items may reflect a meaningful distinction. Writing a

letter is relatively easy to do (witness the high proportion of students claiming to be able to do so)

so involvement in community service may not contribute to an already well developed skill.

Speaking in public is more difficult for some people, and community involvement may give students some experience in expressing their opinions in front of adults other than those with whom

they normally interact. It is perhaps safest, however, to conclude that the evidence is suggestive of

a connection between community service and participatory skills, but that it is not definitive.28

With respect to family characteristics, existing theories are unsupported in that there is no

noticeable relationship between parental education and student participatory confidence. However, to the extent that more educated parents tend to have more open communication in their

households, student participatory confidence may be indirectly influenced by parental education in

that students who are given a voice in household decision making have more confidence in their

ability to communicate effectively than other students. In addition, the perceived ability of students to make a statement at a public meeting is positively related to the same perception among

their parents.29 Public school students rank below private school students with respect to one

skill, making a public statement, but not the other.

Political Efficacy

The predictors of political efficacy reveal similar patterns along with some important differences. First of all, one of the indicators of political efficacy behaves in much the same way as political knowledge, for readily apparent reasons (table 7). The efficacy item, “Do you understand

politics?” taps student subjective confidence in the ability to understand what is happening

 

28The fact that perceived ability to write a letter was so highly skewed might artificially reduce its relationship with other variables. But observing the number of variables that are related to letter-writing skills calls such an explanation into question for

any one variable.

29Letter writing is the only instance in this study in which the parent version of a variable is not significantly related to the

corresponding student variable. The overall pattern of associations indicates a positive relationship between parent and student

attitudes and behavior.
Multivariate Tests

53

in the political world. There should be a connection between students’ objective knowledge of a

subject, politics in this case, and how they assess their understanding of it (subjective knowledge).

And so it is that the predictors of objective and subjective knowledge are very similar including,

importantly, parents’ subjective knowledge and extensive student participation in community

service. One exception is also noteworthy: minority students are about as likely as white students

to believe that they understand politics, perhaps contributing to their perceived equality in participatory skills.

In contrast to the result for internal efficacy, the item about student perceptions of family

say in politics generally shows a limited relationship with the array of student characteristics and

activities (table 7, right-hand column). Given that the item inquires about a family-level attribute,

the lack of connection to most student characteristics is understandable. Yet two points are worth

making about this result. First, the student’s role in family decisions is positively related to this

aspect of political efficacy; as discussed above, modes of interaction within the family may have

spillover effects into the political world. Second, a substantively significant relationship between

parent responses and those of their offspring is evident here as elsewhere. The level of the parents’ education is an important predictor of whether students think their family has much say in

governmental decisions, but even after controlling for that factor, whether parents think they have

a say makes a difference in how students feel.

Tolerance of Diversity

A quite different set of results holds for student tolerance of diversity (table 8). First, even

discounting somewhat the item about speaking against religion because of its skewed distribution,

relatively few significant relationships exist. Even the relationships that are evident may be somewhat misleading. Consider the variable denoting whether English is the language spoken most at

home. The variable is significant only for the item about speeches against religion; it may be that

Hispanic students, who are more likely to speak a language other than English at home, are more

sensitive to criticism of religion because of the role of the church in countries with a Hispanic

heritage. This, rather than any lower tolerance levels per se among students who do not speak

English at home, may account for the result on this measure.30 In another instance, the significant

coefficient for student perception of school openness, the sign of the coefficient is opposite what

one might expect, and it is hard to provide a rationale for such a result.

 

30As noted earlier, this is one instance in which black and Hispanic students give very different responses. Black students are

very similar to white students on this item; 88.4 and 89.9 percent, respectively, agree that people should be allowed to speak

against religion. Among Hispanic students, the comparable percentage is 81.5 percent, an important drop in this largely consensual item.
Multivariate Tests

54

What remain as predictors of tolerance are consistent relationships with grade in school

(students in higher grades are more tolerant on both items) and the attitudes of parents and, in the

case of allowing controversial books in a public library, gender, race–ethnicity, student government, parental education, and school type. In the case of grade in school, the finding is consistent

with the learning of a more tolerant attitude in classes since it is in the 11th and 12th grade that

students have had the most history and government classes; yet it may also be that maturation,

even apart from classroom lessons, brings with it a greater understanding of the principle of rights

and freedoms and that this is manifested here in greater political tolerance. In the case of parental

opinions, it is noteworthy that they loom large in a multivariate context even though the bivariate

comparisons (table 3e) might have suggested that parental influence is relatively weak.
Multivariate Tests

55

57

Community Service and Service Learning

Community service is related to a number of indicators of civic development, even in the

multivariate analysis. The large number and variety of controls entered into the model provide

considerable assurance that this relationship is meaningful. Yet there is another threat to validity

that could affect this relationship more than many others. This is the matter of how the variables

to be explained (civic development) and the variables used to explain them relate to one another.

In most instances, it is safe to assume that the variables being used to explain civic development

precede the development. For instance, it is almost certain that something about gender underlies

differences in civic development and not the other way around. However, this is not necessarily

the case when it comes to the measure of community service involvement. It is likely that those

who participate more are more knowledgeable about politics and feel more comfortable speaking

at public gatherings, though it is also possible that those who are more knowledgeable and more

self-confident are more likely to volunteer. The question here is: does community service lead to

changes in the variables to which it is related, or do the variables to which it is related lead some

students to take part in such service while discouraging others? Of course, with a cross-sectional

analysis one cannot hope to establish fully the nature of these relationships (and, indeed, they are

not mutually exclusive). Yet it is important to test explanations that clearly indicate that community service does not lead to increased civic development.

With the data from NHES:96, one significant test is possible. As just noted, the explanation

for the relationship between community service and civic development could be due to selfselection into such service. Thus, for example, if those who feel more confident about themselves

and their ability to deal with adults volunteer disproportionately for community service, a relationship between service and the perceived ability to make a statement at a public meeting may result—and yet in no way be due to confidence-boosting activities or any other activities undertaken

as part of that service. Since the alternative explanation has to do with self-selection, a test that

can be performed is to see whether the relationships uncovered so far are also found among those

whose participation was not necessarily voluntary.

Specifically, students were asked whether their school “arrange[d] or offer[ed] any service

activities that students can participate in” or whether “participation in a service activity [was] required.” Based on the responses to these questions, students were selected who were in schools
Community Service and Service Learning

58

that either arranged or required service.31 Regression analyses identical to those in tables 4–8

were then run. For the instances in which participation was significant, the results of this analysis

were nearly a carbon copy of those shown previously (table 9). Thus, even among those whose

participation was not voluntary or whose participation was facilitated by the school, community

participation was associated with greater political knowledge, more frequently talking with parents about the news, greater perceived participation skills, and a higher sense of internal political

efficacy. These findings are consistent with the argument that participation leads to some changes

in student civic development.32

Table 9—Comparison of select community service regression coefficients between all 9th- through 12thTable 9—grade students and 9th- through 12th-grade students whose service was required or arranged by

Table 9—schools: 1996

Once or Less than 35 or more Once or Less than 35 or more

twice 35 hours hours twice 35 hours hours

Component of civic development

 Political knowledge 0.09 0.11 0.23* 0.10 0.11 0.21* 

 Talks with parents 0.03 0.20* 0.21* 0.03 0.23* 0.22* 

 Make a statement 0.28* 0.50* 0.45* 0.28* 0.48* 0.48* 

 Understands politics 0.05 0.26 0.35* 0.02 0.18 0.33* 

*p<0.05.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey,

Spring 1996, Youth Civic Involvement Component.

All 9th–12th-grade students

9th–12th-grade students

or arranged by schools

whose service was required

One further analysis was also undertaken. As noted earlier, it has been hypothesized that

community service has a greater effect if it is integrated into the classroom, turning voluntary

service into service learning. In NHES:96, students were asked whether they had a chance to talk

about their service experience in class, whether they were required to keep a journal or write an

essay about their service, and whether their service contributed toward their grade in any class.

 

31If possible, one might prefer to use only students whose schools required community service. However, only 839 students in

grades 9–12 (20 percent of the total) were in such schools, a number that would make it somewhat difficult on sampling

grounds to identify significant relationships. Equally important, an earlier analysis found that arranging or offering service, but

not requiring it, was an important stimulus to participation (Nolin et al. 1997). Thus, it was deemed appropriate to consider the

larger group (N =3,709) that were in schools that either required or facilitated participation in community service.

32As a further test, a school practices variable was added to the regression analyses. The variable measured the level of school

involvement in getting students to participate in community service. Students in schools that required and facilitated service

were scored the highest, those in schools that only required service were the next highest, those in schools that only facilitated

service were the next highest, and those in schools that did nothing to promote service were scored lowest. In no case did the

added variable reduce the magnitude of the relationship between service and the civic development indicators and in no case

was the new variable clearly related to the civic development indicators.
Community Service and Service Learning

59

Responses were combined, and the analysis was repeated only for those whose service was integrated in two or three of these ways (N = 437). There was no evidence of greater effects for this

group. As an alternative specification, a four-category scale representing the number of ways in

which service was integrated was entered into the equation. The school integration variable did

not improve any of the models used to predict civic development. In other words, whether or not

students had their service experience integrated into their classroom experience did not noticeably

improve their civic development scores. This is not to say that curricula designed specifically to

link community service to improved civic development would be ineffective, only that integration

of service activities per se did not appear to increase student civic development scores.

61

Summary and Conclusions

Is the next generation of Americans prepared to carry the mantle of democracy? Doubts

about this important ability in particular and concerns about the future of American democracy in

general have led to a number of initiatives from both the public and private sectors. Based on data

from a study of youth civic capabilities, results presented in this report shed new light on the

scope of the potential problem as well as factors that might help ameliorate it.

Because of the importance of mid- to late-adolescence in the formation of key political behaviors and attitudes, this report focuses on the responses from 9th- through 12th-grade students.

Not surprisingly, when looking at behavior and attitudes considered crucial for a healthy democratic political system, some results might suggest cause for concern. As a whole, this group of

students has relatively little knowledge of the American political process, less than half read about

national news in any given week and even fewer discuss it with their parents at least once a week,

just over half claim to understand politics, and about the same percentage would tolerate a public

library’s carrying a controversial book.

However, the results are not all negative. Large majorities of students feel as though they

can write a government official and make a statement at a public meeting. Also, while many may

not be willing to accept the presence of controversial books at public libraries, nearly nine out of

ten students accepted the right of people to speak out in favor of an unpopular idea (speaking

against churches and religion). Moreover, some of the results observed can be explained in terms

of typical life cycle development (such as the low percentages of students who regularly monitor

the news) and may improve as students age as indicated by the fact that students in higher grades

tended to do better on the civic development items than students in lower grades.

Another reason for optimism is the number and nature of the correlates of civic development. One important set of correlates clusters around parental traits, behavior, and attitudes. Students living with more highly educated parents tend to have higher levels of civic development

than do other students. Thus, the increasing level of education among parents, by itself, suggests

that civic development among American high school students may improve. In addition, higher

levels of parental education are associated with increased openness in household communication.

Earlier research has shown consistent links between parents’ political partisanship and the

partisan views of their children. The results in this report indicate that, to a greater degree than
Summary and Conclusions

62

often thought, there are positive relationships between student and parent responses to indicators

of civic development. For instance, students living with parents who have higher levels of civic

development also tend to have higher levels of civic development. Parents and the family appear

to be important in other ways as well: students who are given a voice in family decision making

have more confidence in their participation skills than other students.

Even after controlling for possible parental effects, the potential role of schools is evident.

Once again, earlier research indicated a limited role for schools in the process of civic development, particularly in terms of boosting student political knowledge. What is evident from the

findings presented in this report is that schools may have a bigger role to play in improving student civic development. Though perceptions of school openness do not correlate highly with indicators of civic development, other indicators of school environment do. Apart from higher

political knowledge scores, students in schools with student government and who participate in it

have more confidence in their participation skills, are more likely to feel as though they understand politics, and are more politically tolerant than other students. In addition, the longer students are in school, the better their civic development scores. Students in higher grades read the

news more often, are more likely to feel as though they can communicate with government and

groups of people, more often report that they understand politics, and are more tolerant than students in lower grades.

Finally, though it is important to point out that community service is not necessarily related

to all of the positive outcomes often attributed to it, community service participation is positively

related to several key dimensions of civic development. Findings from this report indicate that

students who participated 35 hours or more during the school year had higher political knowledge

scores, were more likely to discuss the news with their parents, were more comfortable speaking

at public meetings, and more often claimed to understand politics than other students. These

findings suggest that getting students more involved in service activities, apart from providing

needed resources and providing students with various valuable experiences, might contribute to

increasing the overall civic development of American students.

The results also suggest that future research on community service should consider carefully

the amount of effort involved. Findings indicate that the positive relationships between service and

civic development were generally found among those who had performed 35 or more hours of

work. It is questionable whether smaller amounts of service are of any consequence. Rather, it is

sustained community involvement that is associated with a number of features of civic development.
63

Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

The 1996 National Household Education Survey (NHES:96) is a telephone survey conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES). Data collection took place from January through April of 1996. When appropriately

weighted, the sample is nationally representative of all civilian, noninstitutionalized persons in the

50 states and the District of Columbia. The sample was selected using random digit dialing (RDD)

methods, and the data were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI)

technology. (See Vaden-Kiernan et al. [1997] for more information.)

The Youth Civic Involvement (CI) component of the NHES:96, which is the primary basis

of this report, used a sample of students in grades 6 through 12. Up to three instruments were

used to collect information on the school and family experiences of these students. A set of

screening items (Screener), administered to a member of the household age 18 or older, was used

to determine whether any children of the appropriate ages or grades lived in the household, to

collect information on each household member, and to identify the appropriate parent/guardian

respondent for the sampled child. For sampling purposes, children residing in the household were

grouped into younger children (age 3 through grade 5) and older children (grades 6 through 12).

If one child age 3 to 5th grade resided in the household, an interview was conducted about that

child; if there were multiple children in this range, one child was sampled with equal probability.

Similarly, if one child in 6th through 12th grade resided in the household, an interview was conducted about that child; if there were multiple children in this range, one child was sampled with

equal probability. Up to two children could have been selected from a household, one in the lower

age/grade range and one in the higher grade range.

For households with youth in 6th through 12th grade who were sampled for the survey, a

Parent and Family Involvement in Education/Civic Involvement (PFI/CI) interview was conducted

with the parent/guardian most knowledgeable about the care and education of the youth, usually

the child’s mother. Following completion of that interview and receipt of parental permission, a

Youth CI interview was conducted with the student. This report was based on the responses of

9th- through 12th-grade students from this sample with the exception of home-schooled children,

who were omitted because they were not asked many of the relevant school-related items.

All of the variables used in the report are on the Youth CI and the PFI/CI public use data

files. More information about the adult, parent, and youth data can be found in the National
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

64

Household Education Survey of 1996: Data File User’s Manual, Volumes I–V (Collins et al.

1997).

Response Rates

For the NHES:96 survey, Screeners were completed with 55,708 households. A sample of

23,835 children age 3 through 12th grade was selected for a Parent PFI/CI interview. This sample

included 10,949 youth in grades 6 through 12. The response rate for the Screener was 70 percent.

The completion rate for the Parent PFI/CI interview, or the percentage of eligible sampled children for whom interviews were completed, was 89 percent, or 20,792 interviews. Thus, the overall response rate for the Parent PFI/CI interview was 63 percent (the product of the Screener

response rate and the Parent PFI/CI completion rate). An interview with a sampled youth was attempted only after the interview with his or her parent had been completed. The completion rate

for youth in grades 6 through 12 was 76 percent. Thus, the overall response rate for the Youth CI

interview was 53 percent (the product of the Screener completion rate and the Youth CI interview completion rate). Research was conducted to determine the extent of possible bias introduced by this relatively low response rate and findings indicated little cause for concern. For more

information about NHES:96 response rates, see Montaquila and Brick (1997). This report is

based on a subset of the total population of youth, students enrolled in schools in the 9th through

12th grade. The unweighted number of cases included in this analysis is 4,212.

Item nonresponse (the failure to complete some items in an otherwise completed interview)

was very low in the NHES:96. Most items used in this analysis have response rates of 95 percent

or more. Items in this report that have a response rate of less than 95 percent are whether or not

the school has student government and whether or not the student was involved with it, what

grade the father completed if he finished school sometime during the 9th, 10th, or 11th grade, and

household income. Through a procedure known as hot-deck imputation (Kalton and Kasprzyk

1986), responses were imputed for missing values (i.e., “don’t know” or “refused” for items not

specifically designated to have those as legitimate response categories, or “not ascertained”). As a

result, no missing values remain.

Data Reliability

Estimates produced using data from the NHES:96 are subject to two types of error: nonsampling and sampling errors. Sampling errors occur because the data are collected from a

sample rather than a census of the population. Nonsampling errors are errors made in the collection and processing of data.
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

65

Weighting and Sampling Errors

All of the estimates in the report are based on weighting the observations using the probabilities of selection of the respondents and other adjustments to partially account for nonresponse

and coverage bias. These weights were developed to make the estimates unbiased and consistent

with estimates of the national totals. There is a potential for bias in the estimates due to the high

nonresponse in this survey. Analyses of response rates for different classifications of the sampled

youth also demonstrated differential response rates according to the age and grade of the child.

To reduce potential nonresponse bias, grade was used in the construction of weighting classes for

nonresponse adjustment. For more information about adjustment for nonresponse, see Montaquila

and Brick (1997).

The sample of telephone households selected for the NHES:96 is just one of many possible

samples that could have been selected. Therefore, estimates produced from the NHES:96 sample

may differ from estimates that would have been produced from other samples. This type of variability is called sampling error because it arises from using a sample of households with telephones, rather than all households with telephones.

The standard error is a measure of the variability due to sampling when estimating a statistic. Standard errors can be used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample.

The probability that a complete census count would differ from the sample estimate by less than 1

standard error is about 68 percent. The chance that the difference would be less than 1.65 standard errors is about 90 percent, and that the difference would be less than 1.96 standard errors,

about 95 percent.

In addition to properly weighting the responses, special procedures for estimating the statistical significance of the estimates were used because the data were collected using a complex

sample design. Complex sample designs, like that used in the NHES, result in data that violate

some of the assumptions that are normally required to assess the statistical significance of the results. Frequently, the sampling errors of the estimates from the survey are larger than would be

expected if the sample was a simple random sample and the observations were independent and

identically distributed random variables. Taylor series approximations were used to estimate variances that reflected the actual sample design used in the NHES:96 (Wolter 1985).

Standard errors for all of the estimates are presented. These standard errors can be used to

produce confidence intervals. For example, an estimated 41 percent of students reported reading

national news at least once a week. This figure has an estimated standard error of 1.0. Therefore,

a 95 percent confidence interval for the percentage of students reading national news at least once

a week is approximately 39 to 43 percent.
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

66

Nonsampling Errors

Nonsampling error is the term used to describe variations in the estimates that may be

caused by population coverage limitations and data collection, processing, and reporting procedures. The sources of nonsampling errors are typically problems like unit and item nonresponse,

the differences in respondent interpretations of the meaning of the questions, response differences

related to the particular time the survey was conducted, and mistakes in data preparation. As explained above, weighting procedures help to reduce potential bias due to nonresponse.

In general, it is difficult to identify and estimate either the amount of nonsampling error or

the bias caused by this error. In the NHES:96, efforts were made to prevent such errors from occurring and to compensate for them where possible. For instance, during the survey design phase,

focus groups and cognitive laboratory interviews were conducted for the purpose of assessing

respondent knowledge of the topics, comprehension of questions and terms, and the sensitivity of

items (Nolin and Chandler 1996). The design phase also entailed CATI instrument testing and an

extensive, multicycle field test in which about 3,200 Screeners, over 950 parent interviews, about

300 youth interviews, and about 40 adult interviews were conducted.

An important nonsampling error for a telephone survey is the failure to include persons who

do not live in households with telephones. About 93.3 percent of all students in grades 1 through

12 live in households with telephones. Estimation procedures were used to help reduce the bias in

the estimates associated with youth who do not live in households with telephones. Crossclassifications of race–ethnicity by household income, census region by urbanicity, and home tenure by child grade were used for forming cells for raking. For more information about coverage

issues and estimation procedures, see Brick and Burke (1992), Montaquila and Brick (1997),

Montaquila, Brick, and Brock (1997), and Nolin, Collins, Vaden-Kiernan, and Davies (1997).

Derived Variables

Youth attention to news and parents’ attention to news

The attention to news indicator was created by recoding a variable dealing with how often

the respondent read national news (CYRDNEWU) and one dealing with how often the respondent watched national news (CYWATCHU). The values of the variables were recoded such that 1

was coded as 4, 2 as 3, and so forth. Once recoded, the variables were summed into an index with

scores ranging from 2 to 8. Respondents with scores of 2 or 3 were considered to have low atten-
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

67

tiveness, 4 or 5 to have medium attentiveness, and 6 or more high attentiveness. A similar variable

was constructed for parents.

Attention to news with parents

This indicator was calculated by recoding and summing two questions. The first asked if the

student watched or listened to the news with parents during the past week (CYNEWSHH). If respondents said yes, they were coded as 1s, otherwise they were coded as 0s. The second question

asked how often the student discussed national news with parents (CYISTALK). Again, recoding

was done such that if respondents said hardly ever, they were coded as 1s, if once a month as 2s,

if once a week as 3s, and if daily as 4s. The two recoded indicators were then summed. Anyone

with a score of 1 or 2 was considered as having a low level of interaction with parents, 3 or 4 as

having a medium level of interaction with parents, and 5 as having a high level of interaction with

parents.

Participation in student government

Students were asked if their school had student government (PRSTUGOV) and whether or

not they had participated in it (PRREPGOV). Both variables were recoded so that those saying

yes were categorized as 1s and those saying no as 0s. The variables were then summed and the

resulting score increased by 1. Respondents who scored 1 were counted as low on the scale

(no/no), 2 as medium on the scale (yes/no), and 3 as high on the scale (yes/yes).

Participation in in-school or out-of-school activities

The variables PRSCHACT and PRGRPACT asked students whether or not they had participated in any in-school activities (other than student government) during the school year and

whether or not they had participated in any out-of-school activities during the school year. Both

variables were recoded such that if students said yes, they had participated, they were coded as

1s, and if they said no, they were coded as 0s. The recoded variables were then summed and the

resulting score increased by 1. Students who scored 1 were counted as low on the scale (no/no), 2

as medium on the scale (yes/no), and 3 as high on the scale (yes/yes).

Student role in family decisions

Students were asked three questions focusing on how much input they had into family issues. One asked how often the student had a say in family decisions (FEFAMDEC); another

asked how often the student’s side of an argument was given consideration (FEYRSIDE); and the
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

68

third asked how often the student had a say in rules that affected him or her (FERULES). All

three variables had 3 categories with 1 meaning often, 2 meaning sometimes, and 3 meaning

hardly ever. The variables were summed, and those with a score of 3 or 4 were coded as having

an important voice in the family; those with scores of 5, 6, or 7 were coded as having a moderate

say; and those with a score of 8 or 9 were coded as having no say.

Student perception of school openness

Students were asked if they agreed that students and teachers respected one another

(FERESPCT) and if they agreed that students were listened to in school decisions (FELISTEN).

Both variables had 4 categories with 1 meaning strongly agree, 2 meaning agree, 3 meaning disagree, and 4 meaning strongly disagree. The two variables were summed, and if the students had a

score of 2 or 3, they were counted as agreeing with the statements and assigned a score of 3. If

they had scores of 4, 5, or 6, they were counted as somewhat agreeing and assigned a score of 2.

If they scored 7 or 8 on the scale, they were counted as disagreeing with the contention that

schools were open to student input and were assigned a score of 1.

Hours of service measure

The measure presented in this report for the number of hours of community service in which

a student had participated was developed by combining information about the number of weeks

and the number of hours per week that students reported spending in each of up to three service

activities.

First, the number of weeks that the student had participated in each activity was calculated.

The exact number of weeks was used in the calculation if it was reported. For students who reported participating since the beginning of the school year, the number of days from September 1,

1995, to the date of the interview was calculated and divided by 7 to obtain the number of weeks.

Some students (fewer than 3 percent for any service activity) responded in some other way (for

example, three times a month). For service activity one, these cases were assigned the modal

value for service activity one; that is, they were given the most frequently reported number of

weeks for the first service activity named by students. The same procedure was used to assign the

number of weeks for service activity two and service activity three.

Second, the number of hours for each service activity was calculated. If a specific number of

hours had been reported, that number was used. For the few students who gave another response

(e.g., “the hours change from week to week”), the modal value for number of hours for the ap-
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

69

propriate service activity (first, second, or third) was assigned. Modal values were assigned to less

than 3 percent of students in any given activity.

Third, the total number of hours of service in the current school year was calculated. The

number of hours per week was multiplied by the number of weeks for each service activity. The

total number of hours of community service for each student was calculated by summing the

hours for each of the three possible service activities. Once this was accomplished, a fourcategory variable was computed such that those who had not participated were coded as 1s, those

who had participated once or twice were coded as 2s, those who had regularly participated but

did so for less than 35 hours were coded as 3s, and those who had regularly participated and did

so for 35 hours or more were coded as 4s.

Political knowledge

Respondents were asked a series of five questions testing their knowledge about the U.S.

political system. One-half of the sample was asked one set of five questions (CYVP, CYLAW,

CYHOUSE, CYVETO, and CYCONSRV), and the second half of the sample was asked another

set of five questions (CYSPKR, CYJUDGE, CYSENATE, CYCONST, and CYDFENS). For

each correct answer, the respondent was given one point. A similar variable was constructed for

parents.33

Service learning

Students were asked three questions regarding how their community service experience(s)

had been integrated into their schoolwork. The three questions asked students if they had talked

about their experience in class or in a group session with other students (SATALK), if they had

been required to keep a journal or write an essay about their experience (SAJOURNL), and if the

service contributed towards a grade in class (SAGRADE). Students who said yes to all three were

given a score of 4, those who said yes to two were given a score of 3, those who said yes to one

were given a score of 2, and those who said yes to none were given a score of 1.

Statistical Tests

Differences discussed in this report are significant at the 95 percent confidence level or

higher, and where a lack of difference is noted, the significance of the difference is below this

threshold. Differences between estimated percentages were tested using the Student’s t statistic.

 

33Analyses were conducted to test the comparability of the two sets of items. Though the second set was more difficult, there

was no difference in the types of students that were asked the first set of questions versus those who were given the second set.
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

70

This t statistic can be used to test the likelihood that the differences between two independent estimates are larger than would be expected simply due to sampling error. To compare the difference between two percentage estimates, Student’s t is calculated as:

1 2

1

2

2

2

p - p

se +se

where p1 and p2 are the estimated percentages to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding adjusted standard errors.

As the number of comparisons on the same set of data increases, so does the likelihood that

the t value for one or more of the comparisons will exceed 1.96 simply due to sampling error. For

a single comparison, there is a 5 percent chance that the t value will exceed 1.96 due to sampling

error. For five tests, the risk of getting at least one t value over 1.96 due to sampling error increases to 23 percent. To compensate for the problem when making multiple comparisons on the

same set of data or for a given hypothesis, Bonferroni adjustments were made. Bonferroni adjustments essentially deflate the alpha value needed to obtain a given confidence interval. Bonferroni adjustment factors are determined by establishing the number of comparisons that could be

made for a given set of data. The alpha value (probability of finding a given result by chance) for a

given level of confidence is then divided by the number of possible comparisons. The resulting

alpha value is then compared with the table of t statistics to find the t value associated with that

alpha.

Multivariate Analysis

To design the multivariate analysis presented in the tables, either an ordinary least squares

(OLS) regression or a logistic regression was devised for each of the indicators of civic development. Where the dependent variable had two or more categories that could be meaningfully ordered, an OLS was run. Where the dependent variable had only two meaningful categories, a

logistic regression was run.

Several variables that appeared to be significant in the bivariate tests were no longer significant predictors of the dependent variable in multivariate tests (e.g., student academic performance

was significantly related to whether or not the student read national news at least once a week

[table 1b]; however, in the multivariate analyses, the relationship was no longer significant [table

5]).

Interpreting the b values generated by OLS is fairly straightforward. The slope, or b value,

indicates how many units of change in the dependent variable occur for each unit of change in the
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

71

independent variable. For instance, as shown in table 5 (column 1), every categorical increase in

“Attention to news with parents” (low, medium, and high) is associated with an increase of 0.62

categories in the “Youth reads national news” item (hardly ever, at least once a month, at least

once a week, almost every day).

The R2 values are also fairly easy to understand. Basically, they indicate how much of the

variance in the variable of interest is explained by the variables being used to explain it. For instance, the variables in table 4 account for 34 percent of the variance seen among student political

knowledge scores.

 Interpreting the coefficients generated by using logistic regression is not as straightforward.

The coefficient for a given variable is expressed in relation to an omitted category for the variable,

controlling for all other variables in the model. The applicable coefficients can be summed to estimate the probability that students with certain characteristics will participate in community service. For example, a 12th-grade student living with a parent who said people should be allowed to

make a speech against religion would have a logistic score of -0.04 + 2(0.16) + 0.81 = 1.09.

Based on these characteristics, the probability of understanding politics is 1/(1 + e-1.09) = 0.75 or

75 percent (table 8).

The odds ratio can be used to estimate the change in probability of a student’s developing

democratic predispositions. An odds ratio greater than one indicates that students in the indicated

group are more likely to behave in a given way or think in a given way than the omitted group.

Using the example presented in the preceding paragraph, suppose a student would ordinarily have

a 75 percent probability of agreeing that speeches against religion should be allowed. If we then

learned that the student spoke mostly English at home, his or her probability would have to be

adjusted upward. First, the base probability would have to be expressed as an odds ratio [75/(100-

75) = 3.00]. The odds ratio of 1.82 for students who speak mostly English at home could then be

multiplied by the original odds (3.00 times 1.82 = 5.46) to estimate the revised odds that the student would agree. To express the revised odds as a probability, the following formula is applied:

probability = (odds) / (1 + odds) = 5.46/6.46 = 0.85. Among otherwise similar students, those like

the student just described (i.e., who also speak English at home) are likely to agree 85 percent of

the time, compared with students who do not speak mostly English who would only agree 75 percent of the time.

The summary statistic for logistic regression, R2

LA, was designed to be roughly equivalent to

the adjusted R2 in OLS. The R2

LA coefficient indicates how much of a reduction occurs in the -2

log likelihood associated with the dependent variable once all of the modeled independent variables are considered. A value of 1.0 means that the -2 log likelihood associated with a dependent
Survey Methodology and Data Reliability

72

variable has decreased 100% once all of the independent variables in the model are taken into account and a value of 0.0 means there was no reduction after modeling the independent variables.

Looking at the first logistic regression, shown in table 5, the R2

LA value is 0.16. This means that,

by controlling for the modeled independent variables, the -2 log likelihood associated with the dependent variable decreases 16 percent (Menard 1995).
73

References

Abramson, P. 1983. Political Attitudes in America. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Adelson, J., and O’Neil, R. 1966. “Growth of Political Ideas in Adolescence: The Sense of Community.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 295–306.

Adelson, J., Green, B., and O’Neil, R. 1968. “Growth of the Idea of Law in Adolescence.” Developmental Psychology 1: 327–32.

Almond, G., and Verba, S. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Alt, M., and Medrich, E. 1994. “Student Outcomes from Participation in Community Service.”

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates.

Anderson, L., Jenkins, L., Leming, J., MacDonald, W., Mullis, I., Turner, M., and Wooster, J.

1990. The Civics Report Card. Princeton: National Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service.

Balch, G. 1974. “Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept ‘Sense of Political Efficacy’.” Political Methodology 1: 1–43.

Beatty, A., Reese, C., Persky, H., and Carr, P. 1996. NAEP 1994 History Report Card (NCES

96-085). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement.

Beck, P. 1977. “The Role of Agents in Political Socialization.” In Handbook of Political Socialization. Ed. S.A. Renshon. New York: Free Press.

Beck, P., and Jennings, M. 1982. “Pathways to Participation.” American Political Science Review

76: 94–108.

Berliner, D., and Biddle, B. 1995. The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on

America’s Public Schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blendon, R., Benson, J., Morin, R., Altman, D., Brodie, M., Brossard, M., and James, M. 1997.

“Changing Attitudes in America.” In J. Nye, Jr., P. Zelikow, and D. King (Eds.), Why People

Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
References

74

Braungart, R., and Braungart, M. Forthcoming. “Changes in Citizenship Education in the United

States.” In O. Ichilov (Ed.), Citizenship and Citizenship Education in a Changing World. London: Woburn.

Brick, M., and Burke, J. 1992. Telephone Coverage Bias of 14- to 21-Year-Olds and 3- to 5-

Year-Olds (NCES 92-101). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics.

Butts, R. 1981. “Society’s Expectations for School Instruction about the Constitution: An Historical Overview.” In H. Mehlinger (Ed.), Teaching about the Constitution in American Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: American Historical Association and American Political Science

Association.

Calhoun, J. 1993. “Utilizing Youth as Resources.” Youth Policy 15: 32–34.

Center for Civic Education. 1994. National Standards for Civics and Government. Calabasas,

CA: Center for Civic Education.

Chandler, K. 1997. 1996 National Household Education Survey (NHES:96) Questionnaires:

Screener/Household Library, Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement, Youth Civic Involvement, and Adult Civic Involvement (NCES Working Paper 97-25).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Chaffee, S., McLeod, J., and Wackman, D. 1973. “Family Communication Patterns and Adolescent Political Participation.” In J. Dennis (Ed.), Socialization to Politics. New York: Wiley.

Chapman, C., Nolin, M., and Kline, K. 1997. Student Interest in National News and Its Relation

to School Courses (NCES 97-970). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

CIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research Program). 1996. The American Freshman: National

Norms for Fall 1996. Los Angeles: American Council on Education, University of California, Los

Angeles.

Civics Framework for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress. 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Government Board.

Cohen, P., Kulik, J., and Kulik, C. 1982. “Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-Analysis.”

American Educational Research Journal 19: 237–48.

Coleman, J., Calgary, S., and Hoffer, T. 1981. Public and Private Schools: An Analysis of High

School and Beyond A National Longitudinal Study for the 1980’s (NCES 82-230). Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
References

75

Collins, M., Brick, J., Nolin, M., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Gilmore, S., Chandler, K., and Chapman, C.

1997. National Household Education Survey of 1996: Data File User’s Manual, Volumes I–V

(NCES 97-425, NCES 97-424, NCES 97-423, NCES 97-422, NCES 97-421). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Collins, M., Brick, J., Nolin, M., Vaden-Kiernan, N., Gilmore, S., Chandler, K., and Chapman, C.

1997. National Household Education Survey of 1996: Data File User’s Manual, Volume IV

(NCES 97-422). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education

Statistics.

Conrad, D., and Hedin, D. 1991. “School-Based Community Service: What We Know from Research and Theory.” Phi Delta Kappan 72: 743–47.

Cremin, L. 1980. American Education: The National Experience 1783–1876. New York: Harper

and Row.

Dawson, R., Prewitt, K., and Dawson, K. 1977. Political Socialization (2nd ed.). Boston: Little,

Brown.

Delli Carpini, M., and Keeter, S. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

People for the American Way. 1989. Democracy’s Next Generation: A Study of Youth and

Teachers. Washington, DC: People for the American Way.

Dewsbury-White, K. 1993. “The Relationship of Service-Learning Project Models to the SubjectMatter Achievement of Middle School Students.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan

State University.

Ehman, L. 1980. “The American School in the Political Socialization Process.” Review of Educational Research 50: 99–119.

Ferguson, P. 1991. “Impacts on Social and Political Participation.” In J. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook

of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.

Hamilton, S., and Zeldin, R. 1987. “Learning Civics in the Community.” Curriculum Inquiry 17:

407–20.

Hedin, D. 1987. “Students as Teachers: A Tool for Improving School Climate.” Social Policy 17:

42–47.

Hepburn, M. 1997. “Service Learning in Civic Education: A Concept with Long, Sturdy Roots.”

Theory into Practice 36: 136–42.
References

76

Hess, R., and Torney, J. 1967. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago:

Aldine.

Hodgkinson, V., and Weitzman, M. 1997. Volunteering and Giving among Teenagers 12 to 17

Years of Age. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Holland, A., and Andre, T. 1987. “Participation in Extracurricular Activities in Secondary School:

What Is Known, What Needs to Be Known.” Review of Educational Research 57: 437–66.

Huntington, S. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New

York: Simon and Schuster.

Hyman, H. 1959. Political Socialization. Glencoe: Free Press.

Hyman, H., and Wright, C. 1979. Education’s Lasting Influence on Values. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Hyman, H., Wright, C., and Reed, J. 1975. The Enduring Effects of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jennings, M., Ehman, L., and Niemi, R. 1974. “Social Studies Teachers and Their Pupils.” In M.

Jennings and R. Niemi (Eds.), The Political Character of Adolescence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jennings, M., and Niemi, R. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Jennings, M., and Niemi, R. 1981. Generations and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Kahne, J., and Westheimer, J. 1996. “In the Service of What? The Politics of Service Learning.”

Phi Delta Kappan 77: 593–99.

Kalton, G., and Kasprzyk, D. 1986. “The Treatment of Missing Data.” Survey Methodology 12:

1–16.

Ladd, E. 1998. Silent Revolution: The Reinvention of Civic America. New York: Free Press.

Langton, K., and Jennings, M. 1968. “Political Socialization and the High School Civics Curriculum in the United States.” American Political Science Review 62: 862–67.

Leming, J. 1985. “Research on Social Studies Curriculum and Instruction: Interventions and Outcomes in the Socio-Moral Domain.” In W. Stanley (Ed.), Review of Research in Social Studies

Education: 1976–1983. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
References

77

Mahtesian, C. June 1997. “The Politics of Ugliness.” Governing 10 (9): 18–22.

Markus, G., Howard, J., and King, D. 1993. “Integrating Community Service and Classroom Instruction Enhances Learning: Results from an Experiment.” Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis 15: 410–19.

Menard, S. 1995. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Merelman, R. 1971. Political Socialization and Educational Climates. New York: Holt, Rinehart

& Winston.

Merelman, R. 1980. “Democratic Politics and the Culture of American Education.” American

Political Science Review 74: 319–32.

Miller, W., and Shanks, J. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Montaquila, J., and Brick, J. 1997. Unit and Item Response, Weighting, and Imputation Procedures in the 1996 National Household Education Survey (NCES Working Paper 97-40). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Montaquila, J., Brick, J., and Brock, S. 1997. Reinterview Results for the Parent and Youth

Components of the 1996 National Household Education Survey (NCES Working Paper 97-38).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

National Commission on Youth. 1980. The Transition of Youth to Adulthood: A Bridge Too

Long. Boulder, CO: Westview.

National Education Goals Panel. 1997. National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of

Learners, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nie, N., Junn, J., and Stehlik-Barry, K. 1996. Education and Democratic Citizenship in America:

Creating Enlightened Political Autonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Niemi, R., Craig, S., and Mattei, F. 1991. “Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study.” American Political Science Review 85: 1407–13.

Niemi, R., and Jennings, M. 1991. “Issues and Inheritance in the Formation of Party Identification.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 969–88.

Niemi, R., and Junn, J. 1998. Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Nolin, M., and Chandler, K. 1997. Cognitive Laboratories and Recorded Interviews in the National Household Education Survey (NCES 96-332). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
References

78

Nolin, M., Chaney, B., and Chapman, C. 1997. Student Participation in Community Service Activity (NCES 97-331). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Nolin, M., Collins, M., Vaden-Kiernan, N., and Davies, E. 1997. Comparison of Estimates in the

1996 National Household Education Survey (NCES Working Paper 97-28). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Nye, J. 1996. “Visions of Governance for the Twenty-First Century.” Speech at the Kennedy

School of Government Spring Symposium (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/visions).

Nye, J. Jr., Zelikow, P., and King, D. (Eds.). 1997. Why People Don’t Trust Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Patrick, J. 1977. “Political Socialization and Political Education in Schools.” In S.A. Renshon

(Ed.), Handbook of Political Socialization. New York: Free Press.

Patrick, J., and Hoge, J. 1991. “Teaching Government, Civics, and Law.” In J. Shaver (Ed.),

Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.

Putnam, R. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy

6: 65–78.

Ravitch, D., and Finn, C., Jr. 1987. What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know? New York: Harper &

Row.

Scholzman, K., Verba, S., Brady, H., and Erkulwater, J. 1998. “Why Can’t They Be Like We

Were?: Understanding the Generation Gap in Participation.” Unpublished paper presented at

Boston College.

Sears, D., and Valentino, N. 1997. “Politics Matters: Political Events as Catalysts for Preadult

Socialization.” American Political Science Review 91: 45–65.

“A Selected Review of Trends and Influences of Civic Participation.” n.d. Minneapolis: Center for

the Study of Political Psychology, University of Minnesota.

Shumer, R., and Belbas, B. 1996. “What We Know about Service Learning.” Education and Urban Society 28: 208–23.

Stanley, H., and Niemi, R. 1998. Vital Statistics on American Politics (1997–1998 ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
References

79

Stouffer, S. 1955. Communism, Conformism, and Civil Liberties. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Teixera, R. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Vaden-Kiernan, N., Nicchitta, P., Montaquila, J., and Collins, M. 1997. Design, Data Collection,

Interview Administration Time, and Data Editing in the 1996 National Household Education

Survey (NCES Working Paper 97-35). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K., and Brady, H. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wade, R., and Saxe, D. 1996. “Community Service-Learning in the Social Studies: Historical

Roots, Empirical Evidence, Critical Issues.” Theory and Research in Social Education 24: 331–

59.

Wilen, W., and White, J. 1991. “Interaction and Discourse in Social Studies Classrooms.” In J.

Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York:

Macmillan.

Wolter, K. 1985. Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

W.T. Grant Foundation. 1988. Citizenship Through Service: Pathways to Success for America’s

Youth and Young Families. Washington, DC: W.T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work,

Family, and Citizenship.