Politische Bildung vs. Civic Education: A closer look at mutual opportunities for learning

A German-language version of this piece can be found here.

In the wake of the January 6th attack on American democracy, Minister of Foreign Affairs Heiko Maass offered his support to the U.S., saying: We are ready to work with the U.S. on a joint Marshall Plan for democracy. Tackling the division in our countries by the roots is one of the greatest tasks for the U.S. and Europe (translated).

Although critics were quick to call out the comment as “loudmouthed and presumptuous” (Schulte, 2021), his call for cooperation is well-founded. After all, the conspiracy theory-laden, polarized, right-wing populist political environment hasn’t neglected Germany either. As a result, strong calls for strengthening civic education have grown louder[1], what some in the U.S. have dubbed a “Sputnik moment” for civics — recalling how Cold War tensions paved the way for reinvestment in STEM education. A transatlantic re-commitment to democracy calls for exchange between professionals in one of the pillars that will be asked to strengthen it: civic education. Similar challenges and aims, combined with vastly different civic learning ecosystems, present an opportunity for fruitful German-American exchange in this arena.

A new project launching in 2021 is paving the way to do just that. The Transatlantic Exchange of Civic Educators (TECE), to be conducted in partnership with the Arbeitskreis deutscher Bildungsstätten (AdB) and Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University, will lay the groundwork for this focus. The one-year pilot project will bring together 20 German and U.S.-American extracurricular civic learning professionals to reflect on shared challenges, learn from respective approaches and provoke crucial innovation in civic learning through peer-learning seminars, site-specific visits, and exchange with relevant experts in academia and praxis. The project will contribute to the discourse around German-American civic education and youth work, especially timely given the initial investments being made in a German-American Youth Office.[2]

As a U.S.-American guest fellow with the Arbeitskreis deutscher Bildungsstätten e.V. (AdB) over the past year, I have investigated these two unique approaches to civic education and the potential opportunities for mutual growth. Although it is impossible to paint a complete picture in a matter of pages, here I present several initial observations as to what a U.S.-German exchange in non-formal youth civic education might offer through the lens of five fundamental questions confronting the field.

Who is best suited to provide quality civic education?

One of the most striking differences when comparing civic education in Germany and the U.S. is the role of the state. In Germany, the unique field of außerschulische politische Jugendbildung (non-formal youth civic education) is legally codified and well-established, falling under the broader field of youth work in Germany. In the U.S., a less clearly defined and decentralized youth policy which varies greatly between states and local levels, sees civic learning largely as a footnote, if at all. A focus on youth leadership and voice and depoliticized forms of community engagement like volunteering and service learning is more commonly cited than overt civic/political learning. Furthermore, although attention toward positive youth development is increasing, youth policies are generally still deficiency- or problem-oriented rather than strengths-based youth work (Ferber et al., 2005). In comparison to Germany’s heartily funded system, there has been a clear decline in state funding for civic education in the U.S. in the last decade. Estimates show the federal government currently spends just $5 million on civic education (Sawchuk, 2020), which is focused on schools. Non-school civic learning actors vie for private donations and foundation funds in a tight market that often makes it difficult for new and smaller organizations to compete.

In comparison, the sheer extent of public support in Germany makes the state a powerful force and it has an important role to play, but it does raise questions about the implications of this level of institutionalization: is some degree of agency lost on behalf of civil society actors when the state becomes the primary “provider”?; to what extent do independent actors have access to shaping the policies and funding structures that ultimately shape much of the work they are able to do?; is the field “too dependent” on this reliable source of support? If the goal is to raise citizens that are active in co-creating democratic space themselves, is it not important that this be visible in the act of education itself, implying a more substantial role for civil society in policy-making and programmatic direction?

A second key difference is the balance of formal vs. non-formal education in civic education. In the U.S., a focus on schools as the primary vessel for civic education harkens back to the Founding Fathers’ primary intent that the public school system prepare students for citizenship (Crittenden & Levine, 2018) and is largely accepted as an institution with a crucial role in developing young people and their ideologies (Beaumont & Battisoni, 2006; Llewellyn et al., 2010; Nugent, 2006) and the one most likely to reach all young people (Kahne & Westheimer, 2003; Matto & Vercellotti, 2012; Carnegie Corporation of New York and CIRCLE, 2003, p.5). A publicly-supported non-formal civic education field, with youth work and non-formal education at the core, as seen in Germany, is not to be found. Certainly, civic learning opportunities exist outside of formal education in extracurricular activities, religious institutions, community organizations, museums, libraries, etc., but often the civic element is a byproduct, rather than a primary aim, and thus, there is lacking coordination and recognition of their contributions to civic youth development. On the other side of the spectrum are explicitly political groups and an emphasis on civic engagement, with opportunities for participation through political parties and issue advocacy.

Many civic-focused organizations, both national and regional, provide direct service or work closely with teachers and schools to provide resources and training and scale programming and/or advocate for specific policies, like including project-based civic learning in curricula. These offerings, however, are far from standard in all communities and schools, and civic deserts, defined as “communities without opportunities for civic engagement” (Matthew et al., 2017) and civic disjuncture, whereby the daily experiences of young people from underserved communities conflict with what they learn through civic education because it is tailored to the experiences of white, middle-class students (Rubin, 2007; Levinson, 2010; Generation Citizen, n.d.), are prevalent.

Civic-focused community organizations often work exclusively in schools, and there has recently been increased policy attention toward expanding these partnerships.[3] Despite the increasing recognition of the role that community organizations have to play, there are less clear guiding principles and far less focus on this sector of civic learning as a field in and of itself, as is the case with außerschulische politische Bildung. There is clear value in representing clearly each sectors’ advantages, goals, and methods in cooperation with schools in an effort to create more equal and effective partnerships between school and non-school institutions, but these rigid educational silos may also sacrifice quality provision. Developing better mechanisms for preventing institutional structures from constructing barriers to cooperation is essential, and exploring how exactly this looks in practice against the backdrop of different systems may be fruitful.

The clear answer to the question posed is that no one institution or sector can take responsibility for educating for citizenship. We cannot expect schools to do the full job of preparing young people for the opportunities and responsibilities of citizenship, just as we cannot expect to reliably reach all young people through voluntary, non-formal education. Moreover, other spheres, such as the digital world, are vitally important for young people’s civic development, of which we know little. A more holistic, cross-sector approach to civic education is one way to balance issues of equity in access to quality civic learning opportunities. As non-formal education faces declining participation rates and a retreat of partnerships as a result of COVID-19, intensified cross-sector collaboration is all the more important. A reorientation of this question with an eye toward overarching aims would better help to understand and orient the unique roles that all actors/sectors can play in the process.

What approaches are best suited to prepare young people for 21st-century-citizenship?

In light of a transforming media environment, attacks on democratic systems and values, increasingly diverse societies and evolving political participation habits, civic education is challenged to constantly reevaluate and reinvent. Narratives such as motivating apathetic and individualized citizens toward greater participation have lost ground as we’ve seen a groundswell of voter turnout and social movements. Practices in deliberative democracy through legislative simulations need reconsideration (or, more likely, supplementation) at a time when the average citizen is more likely to “discuss” issues on social media from the safety of their smartphone. Evolving international relationships and global challenges such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic force reconsideration of what topics civic education should address and what “identity” it is meant to produce. In looking forward to new methods and lines of thought, it is helpful also to look sideways at strengths in respective national approaches, of which two in particular stand out: participatory civics and historical-political education.

There is little disagreement in both Germany and the U.S. that civic education should prepare young people for active citizenship, and empirical evidence and numerous strands of philosophical thought point to experiential education as vital to effective civic learning. This action-taking typically takes one of two forms: social action in the form of, for example, volunteerism, and political action, which indicates conduct that is explicitly political in nature. These participation-oriented approaches are emphasized in the U.S., where civic education and civic engagement[4] are more closely intertwined. Approaches such as service learning, action civics[5], civic youth work[6], and youth organizing[7] exist at the intersection of (positive) youth development (a subtype of youth work which focuses on strengths of youth rather than a deficit-oriented approach) and civic education/engagement. Although not uniformly uncontroversial, a greater emphasis in the U.S. on participation as a goal and a method of civic education is apparent, complemented closely by a greater focus on civic engagement activities such as youth poll workers and volunteering. Surely, these practices are not universally accessible to all young people as it often depends on the availability of community organizations which are often more suited to conduct this work, but recent efforts to introduce a more action-oriented approach in policy and curricula, with an emphasis on partnerships with community organizations, have made progress. Action civics, for example, was adopted as a “Proven Practice” in civic education in 2017 as a specialized form of project-based learning, and legislation at the state and federal level, such as the Educating for American Democracy Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in late 2020 includes funding for community organizations, a modest recognition of the role extracurricular institutions have to play in this arena. Although not absent in German politische Bildung, these approaches are less common. Often, Demokratiebildung (democracy education), with a focus on democracy as an educational structure or experience, is conceived of as separate from politische Bildung, with a greater focus on democracy as the subject matter, creating faux barriers for practitioners and in research. This is changing, however, as leaders in the field make attempts to break down this barrier, for example in the 16th Child and Youth Report (16. Kinder und Jugendbericht, 2020, p. 128). A relatively late arrival of civic engagement politics in the mid-late 90s (Haus, 2011) and a shorter history of Dewey’s philosophy of democracy as a way of life[8] are liable for this comparatively stronger separation, as is ongoing controversy over the role of civic action (politisches Handeln) as a method of politische Bildung, with the ban on indoctrination (Überwältigungsverbot) in the Beutelsbacher Consensus cited as grounds for skepticism (Pohl, 2019).

Historical-political education is a specific focus of German civic education work that grew in the post-WWII years as a way to teach about National Socialism and the Holocaust, not just with facts and figures, but by asking learners to deeply reflect and make connections between historical events and one’s present reality. As the U.S. turns greater attention to long dormant conversations around structural racism and white supremacy, the importance of historical perspective and remembrance work have come more into focus. The discussions around racial equity and discrimination that were given new voice as a result of Black Lives Matter protests in Summer 2020 are intrinsic to civic education discourse in both countries, sparking renewed interest in how civic education can support a more equitable, tolerant and diverse society. Much of this conversation rests on a long overdue reckoning with a difficult history of white supremacy and institutionalized discrimination, moving away from a civic education and history education that has, in many areas, promoted patriotic observance over problems facing the country.[9] Germany’s historical experience has made anchoring the values of pluralism and tolerance of particular import, and the investment in historical-political education and remembrance work is, as a result, a key element of politische Bildung — an approach to dealing with a complex history that the U.S. can learn from. As historical sites like former plantations just begin to include education on slavery as part of programming (Knowles, 2019), we should learn from the work being done through educational programming that we see in Germany at, for example, Concentration Camp Memorials/Education Centers and in the form of international service learning camps. With that said, Germany also has its own work to do in confronting persistent racism and discrimination and its own colonial history, and more work can be done in both countries to make civic education opportunities more equitable overall, making a joint discussion all the more constructive.

Political and social polarization, digitalization, right-wing extremism, globalization, increasingly diverse societies, and the threats of climate change are our 21st century reality. In looking more deeply at the broad variety of approaches civic education can include, we must reanalyze the demands that these transformations will place on citizens today and in the future. Is it more important to learn first-hand how to build social capital by organizing a community food bank or to understand the root causes of food insecurity?; Or perhaps the need is to harness political power by advocating for policies that target those root causes to begin with? Is it necessary that young people to practice these skills first in the “safe space” of a seminar room or simulation exercise or does developing agency demand taking action in the real world? And does the increasing popularity of movements like Black Lives Matter mean that civic education should include the practice and theory of social movements? These questions, among many others, are up for debate, but it is clear that empowering young people with the requisite skills, knowledge and attitudes and creating a culture of civic futurism that asks young people to invent and reconstruct is at the heart of the task. Addressing these global thematic priorities and the methodologies best suited to tackle them should be a transatlantic priority.

What should a professional field of civic education look like?

There is a rich array of public or publicly-supported coordinative institutions in Germany, such as the Federal and state Agencies for Civic Education, the Association of German Educational Organizations (AdB), the Federal Committee for Political Education (bap), and many other professional associations and committees. In contrast, the fledgling effort to build the field in the U.S. is still taking shape. Although a lack of sufficient funds, which results in higher intra-organizational competition (Arthurs, 2016, p. 146), and partisan tensions ,have been difficult to overcome, the momentum thus far has resulted in a multi-disciplinary, cross-partisan and cross-sector approach to bring a wide array of organizations into the discussion through relatively new umbrella organizations like CivXNow, which pulls together traditional youth work organizations like the Girl Scouts of America and YMCA alongside civics-focused community non-profits like Generation Citizen, school-serving national education organizations like Facing History and Ourselves — even issue advocacy and media groups. The theoretically and practically distinct practices of democracy education and politische Bildung in Germany are not separately conceived of in the US — with a “democracy in action” approach woven throughout the best practices of civic learning (Gould, 2011, p. 33).

These budding coordinative organizations can look to Germany’s well-developed infrastructure and comparatively well-recognized professional fields as inspiration, with a well-built out network of professional organizations, training and networking opportunities, various institutions for youth research and praxis-oriented research (German Youth Institute [DJI], academic professorships, RAY-Network) and specialist journals and publishers. A mapped ecosystem (Topografie der Praxis, n.d.) and strong self-understanding of the various sectors that “touch” civic education (”open” youth work activities, international youth work, extremism prevention, social work, etc.) allows room to hone unique offerings. But while U.S. civic umbrella organizations may not have the longevity and investment of their German equivalents, the diverse, cross-sector approach offers a flexibility and innovation that the often siloed structures in the German youth work and non-formal civic education ecosystem may impair. The multi-layered, institutionalized, and often strict self-understanding of the various sectors and disciplines[10] can lead to missed opportunities for collaboration and close out potential partners. Perhaps greater emphasis on including these other sectors in traditional spheres of politische Bildung could enhance innovation and raise the profile of civics as a goal in other circles. This multi-pronged approach is not completely absent, as we see with the Respekt Coaches project (Respekt Coaches, n.d.), which brings together social work, politische Bildung and schools, but more could be done to extend these cross-sector collaborations. One way to achieve this are the competency frameworks often invoked at the European level, or the “human rights-based approaches” in the sense of human rights-based youth and education work. These help to develop cross-sectoral approaches.

Another important feature of a professionalized field is the ability to advocate for its interests. In the U.S., this focus on policy advocacy is evident, often even at the individual organizational level. Given the lack of state-funding and institutions, the professional field takes on a greater role as an advocate for policy change and “brand-building” among stakeholders. Naturally, the more extensive role of the state in structures for politische Bildung in Germany and a closer connection of civil society organizations to government reduces, or at least alters, the need of professional organizations to invest as much energy into advocacy work, as, among other things, there is simply less need for strategic advocacy work to lobby for funding and policy. However, as we have seen in the wake of COVID-19 restrictions that have existentially threatened educational organizations, the need to lobby lawmakers for financial support, and thereby, also increase recognition of the importance of the work, demand know-how and information on behalf of civil society actors that could use strengthening. Here, there is opportunity for the field in Germany to learn.

A strong self-conception and organization on the basis of sector of the various youth work, civic education, and civic engagement branches can contribute to clear lanes of action in a pluralistic ecosystem. However, improved collaboration mechanisms across sectors and an openness to non-traditional organizations would help to foster innovation, as called for in the European Agenda for Youth Work, for example.. There is much room for further discussion on the merits of each approach, as the field of civic education faces increasing pressure to help “fix” societal challenges. Investing in a consolidated, yet diverse field of professionals able to successfully advocate for collective and respective needs is critical to weathering this increasing recognition, coupled with a clear assertion that rather than a quick-fix, civic education must be a long-standing commitment to developing democratic competences.

What does civic learning look like in increasingly polarized societies?

Civic education is just one drop in a much larger metaphorical bucket when it comes to healing social and political divides, but it is one tool to reduce societal polarization, through, for example, digital and media literacy to combat disinformation and conspiracy theories; promoting tolerance of diversity; challenging group think and enabling critical thinking; discussing controversial issues; and engaging with people from diverse backgrounds. It is vital that we look at this from an international perspective, as we see conspiracy theories and right-wing extremism take hold in both the U.S. and Germany, resulting in a political sphere that contains two different versions of the truth. There is broad, cross-partisan support for civic education as part of the solution for managing societal divisions, but ideological polarization within the field and attacks on civic education and affiliated institutions related to neutrality add significant hurdles.

Education in the U.S. is largely politicized, and the “narrow and often ideologically conservative conception of citizenship embedded in many current efforts at teaching for democracy reflects neither arbitrary choices nor pedagogical limitations but rather political choices with political consequences” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004a, p. 241). Ideological disagreements within the field in the U.S. arise between those on the right, who tend to view civic education as a means to “emphasize exceptional democratic traditions as a way to instill love and pride” of country and the left, who see it from a social-justice and emancipatory lens, and significant debate exists in discussions on the best approach to take. These disagreements remind me of the position that German civic education found itself in during the 1970s before the principles laid out in the Beutelsbach Consensus helped to assuage disagreement and lay a common groundwork for the practice. The current disagreements in the U.S. are complex and likely insurmountable — after all disagreement in democracy is a given — but the ability to agree to common grounds is a worthy pursuit and should be a collective aspiration. Emphasis on collaboration from funders and forums for exchange at a supra-organizational level can help to assuage these differences. Of course, external pressure on civic education to espouse a certain view are also notable, captured particularly well by former President Trump’s establishment of a patriotic education commission in response to growing efforts by projects like the New York Times’ “1619 Project” to tell a more detailed and nuanced story of American history, including the difficult history around slavery and Native American genocide. This effort has already been eliminated by the Biden administration, but the extent of polarization in the U.S. today means that debates about what constitutes indoctrination pervade.

In Germany, the theoretical basis of the Beutelsbach Consensus has not made civic education immune to similar attacks. These come primarily from the AfD who have made accusations on the basis that offerings are biased, putting many institutions of politische Bildung on the defensive. The field itself has reacted with a clear and strong statement that civic education is not neutral and doesn’t seek to be — it promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2020, p. 9) The coalescence around this principle is valuable for setting boundaries on what is and is not appropriate in a time when these lines become blurry, but it requires training and support in its actual implementation. Moreover, although the Beutelsbach Consensus continues to reign supreme as the one paradigm that is shared by scholars and practitioners, as well as by civic education in and out of school (Widmaier & Zorn, 2016, p. 10), a revival of the conversation and a reevaluation and possible extension of these foundational German civic education principles is warranted. Particularly in light of today’s political climate, exchange on managing these external threats and internal divisions as a field and as individual practitioners is all the more relevant.

How can we better improve efficacy and demonstrate value?

Evaluating impact of civic education programming is an important temporal and financial investment in quality-assurance and improving recognition of value. However, research on civic education, particularly long-term impacts, is limited — true in both the U.S. and Germany. The literature that does exist is siloed into national discourse, largely because of language barriers but also a feature simply of limited exchange on the subject in the transatlantic space. Notably, there are different degrees of emphasis on and resistance to increasing attention to evaluation in both countries, with the U.S. investing a much greater focus on empirical evaluation (this is generally true for US-American pedagogical sciences, where Germany tends to take a more theoretical approach) (Helmut, 1994, p. 3).

A longstanding reliance on relatively plentiful state funding and political support has meant that many German organizations have been spared the obligation of proving “worth or value” to funders. Although focus on evaluation of activities related to funding is increasing, it rarely goes beyond post-event participant evaluation forms. A certain discomfort with evaluation on the basis of the core principles of non-formal education is evident. A lacking pipeline between praxis, academia/research and policymakers compounds the problem. There are many actors in each domain and at all levels, but the connection is unstructured, and consistent, formal cross-sector communication is limited. Additionally, the research sphere for außerschulische politische Bildung is spread across academic disciplines: political science, education science, political didactics (which deals more with politische Bildung in schools), and to lesser extents, social science, psychology, history and philosophy. This is not to say that research does not exist, especially in comparison with other countries, where the field as a whole is absent or weak, just that in comparison to the scale of the field at large in Germany, research, particularly empirical, needs development.

In contrast, the U.S. civic education field places investment in research and evaluation as a primary goal for funders, policy-makers and NGOs, not only for the sake of increasing legitimacy and support from stakeholders, but also orienting programming based on findings and improving overall quality. Moreover, rather than pressing to disassociate civic education outcomes from measurement and evaluation, there is willingness to lean into research on externally relevant outcomes, such as its impact on academic and career outcomes, and even the business case for civics (U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, 2019). Acknowledging these seemingly extraneous outcomes can help to harness support of other sectors and decision-makers, although there is a case to be made that it forfeits the moral argument that it deserves investment on the basis of democratic norms and human rights and leads to a standardization and formalization of learning outcomes.

Alternative and increasing popular models, such as competence frameworks, which are centered around competency-based learning (aka proficiency-based or performance-based learning) also deserves space here as part of this conversation on program quality and outcomes. In Europe and the U.S., competence frameworks in the scope of youth work and non-formal education are getting attention as a means of better acknowledging the impact of the field and improving quality of offerings. A plethora of models have been created in recent years, on everything from entrepreneurship education to adult education to digital youth work. These frameworks define what various sectors see as necessary competences, often breaking these down into specific and demonstrable learning objectives. They are often intended for use in professional development, but also help learners as part of the learning process itself. Competence frameworks do not designate how to achieve learning outcomes, but rather provide a tool for recognizing and discussing associated aims and steering programming based on it. These frameworks may be particularly useful in recognition of learning happening across sectors — informal, non-formal and formal — as it allows actors to look beyond differences in implementation to focus on respective strengths in working towards overarching, common aims. They also may help learners make the connection between learning that happens informally and that which takes place in other arenas, such as the classroom (connected/networked learning). Certainly, they are also a starting point for creating indicators by which to evaluate programming and individual outcomes, although this is not without controversy. A much larger conversation on the merits and challenges associated with competence-based learning and associated trends like “digital badges” would be useful.

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic fallout has prompted a reshuffling of core beliefs and societal values. Although support for the civic education field in Germany has held relatively strong throughout the crisis, the moment has demonstrated the essentiality of continuing to demonstrate and shore up its societal value. Certainly, those in the field know that it has an important role to play in societal and individual well-being (although it is only a part of the solution), but outsiders may not make that connection or see it as a priority. Moreover, a stronger empirical grounding can foster innovation and help educators select approaches/design projects based on intended outcomes. Strategies for evaluation must be developed together by civil society, academia and funders, and civic education practitioners are particularly well-suited for taking the initiative in this regard. Working in concert to answer questions like how to evaluate difficult-to-measure civic variables, the best ways to communicate value, and how to partner more closely with academia will be vital to the field moving forward, and two divergent approaches would offer much food for thought.

[1] A recent U.S. poll showed that civic education was widely considered the solution that would have the most positive and meaningful impact on strengthening American identity across partisan lines, and a number of bills have been introduced at the state and national levels

[2] € 2 million was allotted in the 2021 budget of BMFSFJ for the development of a German-American Youth Office, to likely be modelled after the bilateral youth offices Germany has already with other countries like France, Israel, Poland, etc.

[3] Examples include a 2018 Massachusetts state law and trust fund to require implementation of action civic projects with support of community organizations and proposed federal legislation, the Educating for Democracy Act, which includes grants for nonprofit organizations. See also 2019 report, “From Civic Education to a Civic Learning Ecosystem

[4] Defined as “working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political processes” (Hoekema & Ehrlich, 2000)

[5] Defined as existing at the intersection of “youth development and civic education” as “a multi-step process to identify key issues in their own communities, conduct research, strategize, and take action, all while teaching the necessary political and civic knowledge to be effective (Gingold, 2013)

[6] Term that describes “co-creation as a form of direct youth work practice that invites youth to become actively involved in their communities as citizens, collaborating with youth workers to create and sustain safe spaces for civic engagement” (Roholt et al., 2013)

[7] Defined as “an innovative youth development and social justice strategy that trains young people in community organizing and advocacy, and assists them in employing these skills to create meaningful institutional and social change in their communities (Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing, n.d.)

[8] This idea characterized the U.S. allies’ “reeducation” effort in the aftermath of WWII (Gerund, n.d.).

[9] Many state civic learning standards focus “almost exclusively on patriotic observances” (Torney-Purta & Lopez, 2006, as cited in Mirra & Garcia, 2017), and students are over twice as likely to study “great American heroes and the virtues of the American form of government” (Lopez & Kirby, 2007, as cited in Mirra & Garcia, 2017) in their social studies and civic courses than problems facing the country.

Citations

Arthurs, S. (2016). Youth Organizing and the Civic Education Sector: Lessons from Theory and Practice to Organize a Way Forward [Dissertation].

Beaumont, E., & Battistoni, R. M. (2006). Introductory Essay: Beyond Civics 101: Rethinking What We Mean by Civic Education. Journal of Political Science Education, 2(3), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512160600840459

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. (2020). 16. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. https://www.bmfsfj.de/blob/162232/27ac76c3f5ca10b0e914700ee54060b2/16-kinder-und-jugendbericht-bundestagsdrucksache-data.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ycyGGg6p58Hu8cNksb6uuboiAJwE760AjmRSQaRYPRPvam60uEgO3G28

Carnegie Corporation of New York, & CIRCLE. (2003). The Civic Mission of Schools.

CivXNow. (n.d.). a solution to what ails our democracy. https://www.civxnow.org/sites/default/files/resources/CivXNow%20infographic%20-%20Luntz%20polling%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Crittenden, J., & Levine, P. (2018). Civic Education (E. N. Zalta, Ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civic-education/#StatPareChilLibeDemo

Ferber, T., Gaines, E., & Goodman, C. (2005). Positive Youth Development: State Strategies ST R E N G T H E N I N G YO U T H PO L I C Y NA T I O N A L CO N F E R E N C E of STATE LEG IS LA TURES Positive Youth Development: State Strategies. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/cyf/final_positive_youth_development.pdf

Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing. (n.d.). Fcyo.org. Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://fcyo.org/about/frequently-asked-questions

Generation Citizen. (n.d.). A STUDY OF THE PRACTICES THAT CULTIVATE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AMONG YOUTH FROM UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. https://generationcitizen.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/360-Civic-Learning-updated-8.12.19.pdf

Gerund, K. (n.d.). „America’s Germany“? Die amerikanische Reeducation-Politik der Nachkriegszeit. Bpb.

Gingold, J. (2013). Building an Evidence-Based Practice of Action Civics. CIRCLE.

Gould, J. (Ed.). (2011). Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools. https://production-carnegie.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/ab/dd/abdda62e-6e84-47a4-a043-348d2f2085ae/ccny_grantee_2011_guardian.pdf

Haus, M. (2011). Entpolitisierte Zivilgesellschaft? Engagement und politische Partizipation. In B. Widmaier & F. Nonnenmacher (Eds.), Partizipation als Bildungsziel (pp. 17–30). Wochenschau Wissenschaft.

Helmut, D. (1994). “Bildung” A basic term of German education. Educational Sciences, 9. https://www.helmut-danner.info/pdfs/German_term_Bildung.pdf

Hoekema, D. A., & Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Academe, 86(5), 79. https://doi.org/10.2307/40251931

Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching Democracy: What Schools Need to Do. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 34–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308500109

Knowles, H. (2019, September 8). As plantations talk more honestly about slavery, some visitors are pushing back. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/09/08/plantations-are-talking-more-about-slavery-grappling-with-visitors-who-talk-back/

Levinson, M. (2010). The Civic Empowerment Gap: Defining the Problem and Locating Solutions. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8454069/Levinson+The+Civic+Empowerment+Gap.pdf?sequence=1

Llewellyn, K. R., Cook, S. A., & Molina, A. (2010). Civic learning: moving from the apolitical to the socially just. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220271003587400

Lopez, M., & Kirby, E. (2007). CIRCLE FACT SHEET Instruction: Content and Teaching Strategies. https://circle.tufts.edu/sites/default/files/2019-12/FS_USCivicInstructionContentTeachingStrategies_2007.pdf

Matthew, A., Bridgeland, J., & Levine, P. (2017). Civic Deserts: America’s Civic Health Challenge (p. 4). https://www.ncoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017CHIUpdate-FINAL-small.pdf

Matto, E. C., & Vercellotti, T. (2012). Methodological Lessons Learned from Conducting Civic Education Research in High Schools. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(04), 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096512000820

Mirra, N., & Garcia, A. (2017). Civic Participation Reimagined: Youth Interrogation and Innovation in the Multimodal Public Sphere. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x17690121

Nugent, R. (2006). Civic, social and political education: active learning, participation and engagement? Irish Educational Studies, 25(2), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310600737552

Pohl, K. (2019). Mit der Klasse zur Demo? Chancen und Gefahren realen politischen Handelns im Kontext politischer Bildung. Bpb.de. https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/bildung/politische-bildung/299187/politisch-handeln

Respekt Coaches. (n.d.). Www.lass-Uns-Reden.de. Retrieved February 12, 2021, from https://www.jmd-respekt-coaches.de/

Roholt, R. V., Baizerman, M., & Hildreth, R. W. (2013). Civic youth work : co-creating democratic youth spaces. Oxford University Press.

Rubin, B. (2007). “There’s Still Not Justice”: Youth Civic Identity Development Amid Distinct School and Community Contexts. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 449–481.

Sawchuk, S. (2020, September 17). $1 Billion for Civics Education? Bipartisan Bill Eyes Dramatic Federal Investment. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/education/1-billion-for-civics-education-bipartisan-bill-eyes-dramatic-federal-investment/2020/09

Schulte, U. (2021, January 10). Heiko Maas’ Marshallplan für die USA :Spontane Fremdscham. Taz. https://taz.de/Heiko-Maas-Marshallplan-fuer-die-USA/!5738810/

Topografie der Praxis. (n.d.). Transfer-Politische-Bildung.de. https://transfer-politische-bildung.de/transfermaterial/topografie-der-praxis/

Torney-Purta, J., & Lopez, S. V. (2006). National Center for Learning and Citizenship Education Commission of the States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED493710.pdf

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. (2019). The Business Case for Civics Education. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/reports/business-case-civics-education

Zorn, P., & Widmaier, B. (2016). Brauchen wir den Beutelsbacher Konsens? : eine Debatte der politischen Bildung. Bpb, Bundeszentrale Für Politische Bildung.