from classroom to voting booth: the effect of high school civic education on turnout - jennifer...

7/29/2019 From Classroom to Voting Booth: The Effect of High School Civic Education on Turnout - Jennifer Bachner

1/33

From Classroom to Voting Booth:

The Effect of High School Civic Education on Turnout

Jennifer Bachner

This version: September 12, 2010Original version: May 23, 2010

Abstract

A healthy democracy requires a citizenry that participates in political life. While inter-ventions such as removing barriers to registration and mobilizing partisans have receivedfrequent scholarly attention, formal civic education has been largely ignored. Using longitu-dinal data and a matching analysis, this paper shows that students who complete a year ofcoursework in American Government/Civics are 3-6 percentage points more likely to vote inan election following high school than those without exposure to civic education. Further,this effect is magnified among students whose parents are not highly politicized. Amongstudents who report not discussing politics with their parents, additional coursework is asso-ciated with a 7-11 percentage point increase in the probability of voting. This result suggests

that civic education compensates for a relative lack of political socialization at home, andthereby enhances participatory equality.

Many thanks to Claudine Gay, Matthew Platt, Steve Ansolabehere, Sunshine Hillygus, Elena Llaudetand the participants in Harvard Universitys American Politics Research Workshop for helpful comments onearlier versions of this paper.

1


2/33

1 Introduction

In a March 2010 op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal, renowned historian and policy

analyst Diane Ravitch expressed frustration with current education reform, noting, Most

significantly, we are not producing a generation of students who are more knowledgeable,

and better prepared for the responsibilities of citizenship. The conception of citizenship as

a learned behavior has existed since ancient times, and it persists as a primary rationale for

the public school system in the United States. Yet despite a consensus on the importance of

educating for democracy among scholars, policy makers, practitioners and the public, there is

a dearth of empirical research documenting the behavioral returns to coursework in American

Government and Civics. What political or civic actions, if any, are students prompted to

take upon leaving their classrooms? This paper tackles this question by examining the effects

of high school civic education on turnout.

2 Motivating Citizens to Vote

From 1964 to 2008, young citizens voted consistently at lower rates than those over the age

of 24. On average, the turnout gap in the presidential elections that occurred during this

time period is a stunning 21 percentage points (Current Population Survey, 2010).

To account for this disparity, a number of articles argue that a lack of adult experiences,

such as marriage, home ownership and employment, depresses youth participation (Squire,

Wolfinger and Glass, 1987; Strate et al., 1989). More recent research, however, finds the life

cycle hypothesis to be of limited value (Highton and Wolfinger, 2001; Stoker and Jennings,

1995), and suggests that a lack of political knowledge (Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1996), iden-

tity (Kiousis and McDevitt, 2008) and efficacy (Pasek et al., 2008) provide more compelling

explanations. By aiding the accumulation of these and other politically relevant resources,

civic education can potentially shrink the youth turnout gap.

2


3/33

Setting aside the disparity in turnout between age groups, the absolute numbers suggest

that there is significant room for improvement in turnout among all U.S. citizens. To address

this broader issue, political scientists have sought to identify interventions that increase

turnout. One group of scholars has focused on federal and state government policies, which

typically lower the barriers to registration and thereby reduce the costs associated with

voting. A second group has devoted attention to get out the vote (GOTV) efforts employed

by campaigns and non-partisan organizations. The theory motivating GOTV practices is

that potential voters are mobilized by social pressure to participate (Rosenstone and Hansen,

1993; Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995).

A summary of the main findings from these types of studies is presented in Table 1.1 The

evidence indicates that both public policies and private efforts can boost turnout, with an

upper bound of approximately 10 percentage points. The elimination of a registration clos-

ing date emerges as the most influential registration reform law and door-to-door canvassing

appears to be the most effective mobilization technique. While this table displays the effects

associated with the most commonly studied interventions, numerous others have received

scholarly attention, including purging voter registration rolls (Wolfinger and Rosenstone,

1980), implementing voter identification laws (Alvarez, Bailey and Katz, 2008) and sending

GOTV text messages (Dale and Strauss, 2009). But although there is an overwhelmingly

large literature on turnout, studies that treat civic education as a form of intervention are

exceedingly rare.

1For the government interventions, the effects are calculated by comparing within state (for longitudinaldata) and between state (for cross-sectional data) turnout in the presence and absence of voter registrationlaws. States with Election Day registration allow citizens to register at the polls (or do not require registra-tion). Motor voter laws refer to the requirement that a voter registration form be included with a driverslicense application. States with extended registration hours require registration offices to remain open afternormal business hours, on weekends or both. The articles cited in the non-governmental interventionssection examine non-partisan GOTV practices, though partisan efforts have likewise been found to havepositive effects on turnout.

3


4/33

% Point IncreaseSelected Citations

in Turnout

Government Interventions

Election Day Registration

3.0 - 8.7Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980);

Teixeira (1992); Fenster (1994);

Mitchell and Wlezien (1995); Rhine (1995);

Brians and Grofman (2001); Knack (2001)

Extended Registration Hours 0.7 - 5.5Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980);

Teixeira (1992); Mitchell and Wlezien (1995)

Motor Voter Program 1.7 - 3.8Knack (1995); Rhine (1995);

Franklin and Grier (1997)

Non-Governmental Interventions

Door-to-door canvassing 7.1 - 10.2

Gerber and Green (2000);

Green, Gerber and Nickerson (2003);Gerber, Green and Shachar (2003)

Direct mailings 0.6 - 2.5Gerber and Green (2000);

Gerber, Green and Shachar (2003)

Phone calls 0.0 - 3.8Gerber and Green (2000);

Gerber and Green (2001); Nickerson (2006)

Table 1: The Influence of Interventions on Turnout.

3 Civic Education as Public Policy

Since the late 1980s, the number of states that require civic education to graduate has in-

creased monotonically. Whereas 21 states required a course in American Government/Civics

for the graduating class of 1988, 33 states imposed this requirement for the graduating class

of 2013.

2

The percentage of U.S. graduates who are exposed to classroom-based civic education,

however, far exceeds the percentage of students who are required by state laws to take a

2I collected these data using newspaper articles, state statutes, state administrative codes and the LBJSchool Survey of State Civic Education (Tolo, 1999).

4


5/33

course on this subject. Every state allows school districts or the like to supplement the

imposed minimum graduation requirements, and many districts take the opportunity to do

so.3 Actual course enrollment data provide a more complete picture of the prevalence of

civic education in the U.S.

Percentage of U.S. Graduates2005 2000 1998 1994 1990 1987 1982

Government/Civics (.5 credits) 79.2 77.3 81.2 78.0 77.4 71.9 62.2American History (1 credit) 94.1 90.0 90.5 94.8 91.3 89.9 81.4

World History (1 credit) 76.5 62.1 60.2 59.4 52.0 42.0 36.3Economics (.5 credits) 46.6 49.2 45.8 44.5 47.3 33.3 27.4

Table 2: Credits Earned by High School Graduates in Social Studies: 1982-2005.

Data are taken from published tables in Roey et al. (2007) and Shettle et al. (2007). Studentswho completed the minimum indicated credits are included in each estimate.

Table 2 presents the percentage of high school graduates who completed the indicated

minimum number of credits in four social studies subjects: Government/Civics, American

History, World History and Economics.4 Although American History has continually ranked

highest in enrollment, an increasing percentage of students complete coursework in Govern-

ment/Civics, as enrollment jumped from 62.2% in 1982 to 79.2% in 2005.Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of American Government/Civics course-taking across

the U.S. for the graduating class of 1992. The map displays the median number of American

Government/Civics credits earned by graduates in each state. Although a substantial portion

of graduates were exposed to this type of coursework, there is significant regional variation.

Students in parts of the Northeast and Midwest are most likely to have taken zero courses

3Rhode Island, for example, does not require credit in civic education to graduate, yet Ponaganset High

School requires students to complete a course in American government and civics beginning with the class of2007 (Boas, December 17, 2002). In 1993, when Maryland passed a law requiring an American governmentcourse beginning with class of 1997, Anne Arundel and Montgomery already had this requirement in place(Leff, August 26, 1993).

4One credit is equal to one Carnegie Unit. A Carnegie Unit is a standard measure of in-class time. OneCarnegie Unit is equivalent to 120 in-class hours; most year-long courses are worth 1 unit. If a year-longcourse were to meet for a total of 150 hours, for example, it would be assigned 1.25 Carnegie Units.

5


6/33

Legend:0 Credits.5 Credits1 Credit

Figure 1: Median Number of Credits in American Government/Civics. Data arefrom the NELS:1988. States are coded according to the median number of credits in Amer-ican Government/Civics earned by high school graduates.

in formal civic education.

4 Previous Research

Taken together, state graduation requirements and course enrollment numbers are evidence

of a widespread mandate that high school students receive classroom-based civic education.

Why is it, then, that the returns to civic education remain a fairly untilled area of research?

The lack of findings by several well-conducted studies published in the 1960s provides a

compelling explanation (Litt, 1963; Langton and Jennings, 1968; Ehman, 1969). Generally

considered the seminal work on the topic, Langton and Jennings (1968) use the 1965 wave of

the Youth-Parent Socialization Study (YPSS) to investigate whether self-reported amount

of civic education is related to political knowledge, interest and attitudes. The null results

across all of the dependent variables lead the authors to conclude, Our findings certainly

do not support the thinking of those who look to the civics curriculum in American high

6


7/33

schools as even a minor source of political socialization (865). This conclusion persisted for

the next three decades.

Recently, however, scholars have begun to revisit the relationship between civics course-

work and political knowledge. Using the 1988 National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), Niemi and Junn (1998) investigate the relationship between the amount and re-

cency of American Government/Civics coursework and performance on the NAEP Civics

Assessment. The authors find that, in 9 out of the 10 areas of civics covered on the exam,

students who indicated that they had completed an American Government/Civics course

scored higher than those who had never studied subject and those who had never enrolled in

a formal course on the subject.5 The authors conclude, . . . The evidence so far suggests that

civics courses do have an effect on student knowledge, an effect that is wide-ranging in terms

of content and . . . also appears to raise students capacity for reasoning and exposition about

civic matters (70). Others who have tested the coursework-knowledge connection have

likewise uncovered positive findings (Anderson et al., 1990; Gimpel, Lay and Schuknecht,

2003).

Noticeably absent among the dependent variables in existing research on civic education

are measures of political behavior. In their analysis, Langton and Jennings (1968) construct

a variable labeled participative orientation. This measure is based on responses to an

open-ended question about what makes a person a good citizen, and it is the only dependent

variable in the study that speaks to behavior.6 One concern with this measure is that it

lumps together activities such as taking an interest in public affairs, voting and trying to

improve the country. It may be that civic education is related to these activities in different

5When civic knowledge is operationalized as a composite variable (0-100), students who complete anAmerican Government/Civics course in twelfth grade are expected to score two points higher than thosewho take the course in an earlier grade, and four points higher than those who do not take the course.

6The survey question reads, People have different ideas about what being a good citizen means. Wereinterested in what you think. Tell me how you would describe a good citizen in this country That is, whatthings about a person are most important in showing that he is a good citizen (Jennings et al., 1997).

7


8/33

ways. Civic education may motivate students to vote but not cause them to stay informed

about political developments. And although a question about how citizens in the abstract

should act is certainly interesting, it does not elicit information about the political activities

in which students actually engage. I address this gap in the literature by treating turnout

as the outcome variable of interest.7

A second potential problem with existing research is error in the measurement of civic

education. The operational definition of civic education is often derived from a survey

question that asks students to report how much American Government/Civics coursework

they have completed, with answer choices such as: less than a year, a year, two years or

more than two years. Students may inadvertently misreport this number either because

they cannot remember correctly or because they are unsure about which courses count

as American Government/Civics courses.8 In an analysis of the amount of misreporting

of U.S. history course-taking present in the 1994 NAEP, Niemi and Smith (2003) uncover

deeply troubling results. The authors find, for example, that 31.3% of high school students

reported enrolling in a U.S. history course during their senior year, whereas the 1994 High

School Transcript Study estimates actual enrollment to be 12.2% (18). It seems reasonable

to expect that a similarly disturbing amount of misreporting takes place with respect to

American Government/Civics classes.

Measurement error may have contributed to the null findings in previous research. If

the error is random, meaning students are just as likely to under-report as they are to

over-report, then the effect of civic education will be biased toward zero. If students tend

7Existing research that investigates the effects of civic education on voting and other forms of participationfocus on particular curriculua, such as Kids Voting USA and Project Citizen (Simon and Merrill, 1998; Vontz,Metcalf and Patrick, 2000; Meirick and Wackman, 2004), as opposed to the cumulative amount of classroom-based civic education.

8Many students around the country, for example, take a course titled American Government and Eco-nomics. Other ambiguous courses include American Foreign Policy and Contemporary World Affairs. Inanswering the survey question, some students may include this course in their total count of civics courseswhile others may not.

8


9/33

to systematically over-report, as Niemi and Smiths (2003) findings suggest, the treatment

effect will likely be understated. To ensure accuracy and consistency in my measure of civic

education, I rely on student transcript data. These data allow me to control the types of

courses that are included in each students count and to tally the amount of actual exposure

to this coursework.9

A final reason to reconsider existing notions about the returns to civic education is the

possibility of interaction effects. It may be that the effect of American Government/Civics

courses depends upon other agents of political socialization, such as parents, peer groups

and the media. Political information can be acquired from each of these sources, and it may

be that exposure to one affects the influence of another. This article examines the effects

of civic education from this perspective by testing whether amount of civics coursework

interacts with level of parental politicization in its effect on turnout.

5 From Classroom to Voting Booth

5.1 A Model of Participation Applied to Civic Education

The Civic Voluntarism Model (Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995) provides a theoretical

framework for charting a path from American Government/Civics coursework to turnout.

The model states that participation is driven by three factors: psychological engagement,

resources and recruitment. Psychological engagement and resources are the two most impor-

tant of the three factors; whereas participation often occurs in the absence of recruitment,

it rarely takes place when the potential participant lacks either resources or psychological

engagement (270).

High school civic education courses can strengthen students psychological engagement

9The transcript data sets list the number of Carnegie Units, a standard measure of in-class time, assignedto each course.

9


10/33

with politics by increasing their political knowledge. Political knowledge promotes interest,

trust and efficacy in the political system by enabling citizens to judge politicians using more

than a few misleading sound bites and images (Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995; Delli

Carpini and Keeter, 1996; Zaller, 1992). When the media cover a mistake by a politician,

knowledgeable citizens will integrate this new piece of information into their existing per-

ception of the featured persons character and policy agenda. An uninformed citizen, in

contrast, is likely to form a much more negative opinion of the politician; the uninformed

citizen possesses no information to counterbalance the negative news story. As a result,

citizens who lack political knowledge may feel mistrustful of the political system. Popkin

and Dimock (1999) illustrate how background and contextual knowledge can influence the

perception of a political event:

To persons who understand the institutions of politics, a long set of exchanges

between, say, Bill Clinton and Robert Dole can be as clear as a sustained volley

in tennis; to persons without any knowledge of institutions, their exchange is

hard to follow and becomes indistinguishable from a food fight or mud-slinging

(134).

In short, less knowledgeable citizens develop more negative views on government and elected

officials. And these negative views, whether they take the form of cynicism, mistrust or

alienation, have a demobilizing effect on those who posses them.

Civic education also has the potential to increase a students store of civic skills. Civic

skills are the communications and organizational abilities that allow citizens to use time

and money effectively in political life (Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995, 304). These

skills make participation easier and thus more likely. Even the simple act of voting requires

citizens to, at the very least, determine how to register to vote and locate their polling place.

Further, the probability that citizens will vote is increased if they are able to discuss politics

with friends and persuade others of their political beliefs.

10


11/33

A number of studies investigate whether civic education classes in general, and civic

education curricula in particular, provide students with politically relevant skills. Gimpel,

Lay and Schuknecht (2003) find that the students who take more than a year of civics

coursework, as compared to students with no civics coursework, discuss politics with friends

and family five percent more per week (149). This effect is perhaps attributable to curricula

that incorporate political discussion and other interactive forms of learning into lesson plans.

Kids Voting USA, for example, is a K-12 curriculum developed in 1987 that encourages

students to engage in activities that teach civic skills. These activities include mock elec-

tions, debates and role-playing. Evaluations of this curriculum reveal the strong, positive

effects the lessons have on students deliberative skills. McDevitt and Kiousis (2004), in a

comparison of student survey responses before and after exposure to the curriculum, find

that the students gained both competence and confidence in their ability to discuss politics.

The authors write, Kids Voting. . . promoted conversational skills and related dispositions

such as the willingness to disagree, willingness to listen to opponents, testing out opinions

in conversation, and challenging the views of parents (10).

A second curriculum that has been found to have significant effects on students devel-

opment of civic skills is We the People: Project Citizen. Today, this curriculum is used by

teachers in all 50 states. The curriculum asks students to research a policy issue relevant to

their community, develop solutions and communicate these solutions to civic and political

leaders. An evaluation of the program by Vontz, Metcalf and Patrick (2000) reveals that

participation in the program is associated with a significant increase in a students confi-

dence in her ability to identify important public policies, describe public policies to others

and formulate opinions on public policies.10

10Student Voices is another popular curriculum that has been shown to increase youth civic engagement.Participation in two semesters of the program is associated with an increase in internal efficacy, candidateknowledge and political attentiveness (Pasek et al., 2008).

11


12/33

5.2 Taking Parents into Account

Parents exert a nontrivial influence on adolescents political development through explicit

lessons and by serving as role models (Hess and Torney, 1967). Parent to child transmis-

sion, however, is not inevitable. Although parents have an inherent potential for successful

transmission (Tedin, 1974, 1592), this potential is best realized under certain conditions.

Political beliefs are transmitted most often from parents to children when perceptual accu-

racy and issue salience are high. Children, in other words, are likely to adopt their parents

attitudes when they develop an accurate understanding of these views, and when these atti-

tudes are important to the parents. This suggests that successful transmission depends upon

the level of parental politicization. Highly politicized parents will possess stronger opinions

on the importance of voting, their partisan orientation and policy issues than parents who

are less interested in or less knowledgeable about politics. As a result, highly-politicized

parents are more likely to emit strong and clear cues regarding their political attitudes.

But what is the mechanism that drives the transmission process? Political discussion is a

key answer to this question (Valentino and Sears, 1998; Verba, Schlozman and Brady, 1995;

Jennings, Stoker and Bowers, 2009). Family discussions about politics provide opportunities

for children to absorb cues given by their parents. As such, I use the amount of political

discussion within the family as an indicator of parental political socialization.

I expect that children whose parents are not highly politicized will derive a greater benefit

from civic education than their peers. This is because low levels of parent politicization

should leave the child bereft or relatively open to influence from other socializing agents

(Jennings, Stoker and Bowers, 2009, 13). Parents who are interested in politics, and who

share this interest with their children, are likely to crowd out the influence of schools.

Students whose parents are not highly politicized, in contrast, have more to gain from their

civics coursework.

12


13/33

6 Data and Methods

6.1 National Education Longitudinal Studies

The above discussion yields two hypotheses: (1) additional coursework in civic education

will increase turnout and (2) this increase will be largest among students whose parents are

not highly politicized. To test these hypotheses, I employ the National Education Longitu-

dinal Studies of 1988 (NELS:1988) and 2002 (NELS:2002). These studies were conducted in

multiple waves and contain student surveys, student transcripts and parent surveys.

The NELS:1988 was conducted from 1988 to 2000. In 1988, a baseline survey was admin-

istered to a nationally representative sample of eighth-graders from 1,052 public and private

schools. Subsequent surveys were administered in the spring of 1990, 1992, 1994 and 2000

to a random subset of the original sample. The completion rate for the first wave is 93%,

and the completion rate for all five waves is 79% (Curtin et al., 2002).

The NELS:2002 was first administered to a nationally-representative sample of high

school sophomores in 2002 from 752 public and private schools. The response rate for

the first wave is 87.3%. This sample of students was interviewed again (along with a fresh-

ening sample) in 2004 and 2006. The response rates for these waves are 90.8% and 89.1%,

respectively (Ingels et al., 2007).

In both the NELS:1988 and NELS:2002, transcripts were collected during students senior

year of high school. The transcript data sets list every course in which each student enrolled,

the year and grade-level during which each course was taken, the length of each course (year-

long, semester or quarter), the grade earned in each course, and the number of Carnegie Units

assigned to each course.

13


14/33

6.2 Voting Variables

The dependent variables measure students voting behavior in the years following high school.

The 1994 and 2000 waves of the NELS:1988 contain questions that ask students whether

they voted in the 1992 presidential election, the 1993-94 state/local elections, the 1996

presidential election and any election between 1998 and 2000. In the 2006 wave of the

NELS:2002, students were asked whether they voted in the 2004 presidential election and

any state/local election between 2004 and 2006. Figure 2 displays the percentage of students

who indicated that they voted in each of these six elections.

1 99 2 1 99 3 94 1 99 6 1 99 8 00 2 00 4 2 00 4 06

Elections

%ofStudentsWhoVoted

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.46

0.31

0.57

0.42

0.510.48

Figure 2: Summary of Voting Variables. This figure displays (1) the percentage of 1992graduates in NELS:1988 that voted in the 1992, 1993-94, 1996 and 1998-00 elections and(2) the percentage of 2004 graduates in the NELS:2002 that voted in the 2004 and 2004-06elections.

6.3 Civic Education Variables

The independent variable of interest are the number of credits earned in four categories of

civic education.11 There are a variety of courses related to American government, politics

11Approximately 70% of students in the NELS:1988 and 73% of students in the NELS:2002 completedsome type civic education coursework.

14


15/33

and citizenship that appear on students transcripts. Guided by previous research and the

descriptions of all 44 civic education courses, I grouped these courses into four categories:

American Government/Civics, American Problems, American Government and Economics

and Other Government. These categories parallel those used by Langton and Jennings

(1968), with the exception of the American Government and Economics category, which I

have added. Figure 3 displays the distribution of these categories for each data set.

(a) NELS:1988

Civic Education Course Categories

%o

fStudents

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

American Amer ican American Other

Gov/Civics Problems Gov/Econ Government

0.82

0.05

0.12 0.1

(b) NELS:2002

Civic Education Course Categories

%o

fStudents

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

American American American Other

Gov/Civics Problems Gov/Econ Government

0.86

0.02

0.110.07

Figure 3: Distribution of Civic Education Course Categories. This figure shows thepercentage of students who completed coursework in each category among all students whocompleted civic education coursework. The percentages in each graph sum to more than 100because some students completed coursework in multiple categories.

The American Government/Civics category includes traditional courses, such as Amer-

ican Government, Basic Government and Civics. Of the students who completed civic

education coursework, an overwhelming majority (82% in the NELS:1988 and 86% in the

NELS:2002) completed this type of course. This is the type of course that is most commonly

offered by schools to fulfill a state or school district imposed civic education requirement.

Although the transcript data sets do not contain information about which courses were re-

quired by the school districts for graduation, it is reasonable to expect that a majority of

15


16/33

students who complete a traditional American Government/Civics course do so either be-

cause it is required or because it is the norm at their school. Further, the inclusion of the

other course categories in each model controls for student interest in taking civic education

courses beyond a traditional American Government/Civics course.

The American Problems category includes courses with titles such as Contemporary

American Political Issues. The popularity of this course has declined dramatically since

its heyday in the 1960s, and only a small percentage of students in the sample at hand

completed this type of course.12

The third category includes courses in which economic issues are woven into the study

of government institutions.13 This type of course has grown in popularity over the past

few decades. Approximately 12% of students in the NELS:1988 and 11% of students in the

NELS:2002 earned credit in this type of course.

Lastly, the Other Government category includes courses in specialized areas of Amer-

ican government, comparative politics and international relations. Courses in this category

appear to be electives rather than required classes. As a result, it is possible that the students

who enrolled in these classes are particularly interested in politics, and it is this interest,

rather than the course itself, that drives their future political participation.

6.4 Control Variables

Each model includes four categories of control variables: measures of civic engagement, school

and state characteristics, home resources and student demographics. The variables in the

civic engagement category are intended to capture a students prior propensity to participate

12

While 18.5% of students enrolled in this type of course in the 1960-61 academic year, this number haddropped to 8.9% in the 1972-1973 academic year, and continued to decline in the following years ( Niemi andSmith, 2001). In Langton and Jenningss (1968) sample, 67% completed an American Government course,37% completed an American Problems course and 10% completed an Other course (of those students whoindicated that they had taken a civic education course) (855).

13These types of courses are different from those in which students spend one semester focused on Gov-ernment and the second on Economics.

16


17/33

in civic and political life. These variables include participation in extra-curricular activities,

participation in student government and participation in school service clubs.14 In addition,

the two data sets contain a few non-overlapping variables that may capture student interest

in politics. The regressions that use the NELS:1988 data include a variable that controls

for eighth-grade interest in social studies.15 The regressions that use the NELS:2002 data

include variables that ask twelfth-grade students how important it is to be (1) patriotic and

(2) an active and informed citizen.16

Included in the home resources category is a measure of parental political socialization,

which is operationalized as the frequency with which students report discussing current

events with their parents. This variable is a three-point scale that ranges from never to

often.17 Parents highest level of education, whether the family receives a daily newspaper,

and socioeconomic status are also included to control for relevant resources.18

It is reasonable to expect that schools in which students take more civics coursework

have other attributes that foster political participation. I control for academic quality by

including the percentage of students who attended a four year college in each model. I also

control for whether the school is public or private, the urbanicity of the school (urban, rural,

suburban) and whether the state imposes a civic education course requirement. Figure A-2

summarizes the state requirement variable.

The final set of independent variables control for student background characteristics that

14The school activities measure is a count of the number of hours per week spent on extra-curricularactivities in tenth and twelfth grade. The student government variable measures participation in eighth,tenth and twelfth grade, and the service club variable measures participation in tenth and twelfth grade.

15The eighth-grade survey asks students whether they look forward to social studies. This variable is afour-point scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

16Both of these variables are three-point scales that range from not important to very important.17The parent survey also contains a question about the amount of discussion about current events that

takes place at home. This variable, however is only weakly correlated with the student variable aboutpolitical discussion. Because of social desirability, the parent variable seems less reliable than the studentvariable, although it is included in each model as a control.

18Socioeconomic status is a composite variable that includes fathers education, mothers education, fa-thers occupation, mothers occupation and family income.

17


18/33

have been shown to influence turnout. I control for gender, race and parents native language.

A binary variable indicating whether the student received a high school diploma and a binary

variable indicating whether the student ever transferred schools are also included.

7 Results

7.1 Direct Effect of Civic Education

For each election, I estimate a logit model with clustered standard errors (clustering on

school). Included in each model is an interaction between American Government/Civics

coursework and the measure of parental politicization.19

The raw output from these six

regressions is presented in Table A-1.

q

q

q

q

q

q

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Change in Probability of Voting (0 to 1 Course)

Ele

ctions

q

q

q

q

q

q

1992

199394

1996

199800

2004

200406 90% CI95% CI

Figure 4: Civic Education and Voting. This graph presents the first difference estimates asso-ciated with taking a year-long course in American Government/Civics versus taking zero courses.

19The American Government/Civics variable and the measure of parental politicization are centered suchthat the mean of each of these variables is 0. Alternative specifications show that there is no interactiveeffect between parental politicization and the other categories of civic education.

18


19/33

To test the direct effect of civic education, I calculate the change in probability of

voting in each election associated with an increase in civics coursework. The only course

category that consistently exerts a positive, statistically significant effect on voting behavior

is American Government/Civics. Figure 4 displays the expected changes in probability of

voting in each election associated with a one-year increase in American Government/Civics

coursework, as well as the 90% and 95% confidence intervals associated with these changes.20

Pr(Voting|0 Courses) Pr(Voting|0.5 Courses) SE of

1992 .539 .562 .023* .0111993-94 .355 .380 .026* .0101996 .627 .644 .016 .0111998-00 .446 .474 .027* .010

2004 .574 .592 .017 .0092004-06 .546 .558 .013 .009

Pr(Voting|0 Courses) Pr(Voting|1 Course) SE of

1992 .539 .584 .045* .0211993-94 .355 .407 .052* .0191996 .627 .660 .032 .0211998-00 .446 .501 .055* .0202004 .574 .609 .034 .0192004-06 .546 .571 .025 .018

Table 3: Effects of American Government/Civics Coursework on Voting. Theestimates for 1992, 1993-94, 1996 and 1998-00 are based on the NELS:1988 data. Theestimates for 2004 and 2004-06 are based on the NELS:2002 data. * p < .05.

The precise first difference estimates and standard errors associated with an increase in

American Government/Civics coursework from zero to one-half and zero to one are displayed

in Table 3. For the 1992 presidential election, students who completed a one-year course

were 4.5 percentage points more likely to vote than those who took zero courses. The

largest effect appears in the 1998-2000 election period, when students who took one year of

American Government/Civics were 5.5 percentage points more likely to vote. The smallest

20Technically the increase is one Carnegie Unit.

19


20/33

effect appears in the 2004-2006 election period, where this increase in coursework is associated

with a 2.5 percentage point increase in probability of voting.

7.2 Interactive Effect of Civic Education

To test whether parental politicization mediates the relationship between civic education

and turnout, I calculate the change in probability of voting associated with an increase

in American Government/Civics coursework while holding the political discussion variable

fixed at never. For all six elections, the estimates are positive, substantively large and

statistically significant.

(a) Interactive Effect of American Gov/Civics

q

q

q

q

q

q

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3


Elections

q

q

q

q

q

q

1992

199394

1996

199800

2004

200406 90% CI95% CI

(b) Interactive Effect in the 1992 Election

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

American Governmet/Civics Coursework (in Carnegie Units)

P

robablityofVoting

in

1992

Frequent Discussion

No Discussion

First Difference Estimates

95% Confidence Band

Zero

Figure 5: Civic Education, Parental Politicization and Voting. Graph (a) presents thefirst difference estimates associated with taking a year-long course in American Government/Civicsversus taking zero courses when parental politicization is held fixed at never. Graph (b) displaysthe first difference estimates for the 1992 presidential election that are associated with a range ofchanges in American Government/Civics coursework.

The predicted effects strongly support the argument that civic education interacts with

parental politicization in its effect on turnout. Table 4 displays the first difference estimates

and standard errors associated with increasing American Government/Civics coursework

20


21/33

among students who report never discussing current events with their parents. For the 1992

election, a one-year increase in American Government/Civics coursework is expected to

increase a students probability of voting by 11.4 percentage points. Across all six elections,

the average estimated increase in probability is 8.7 percentage points.

Pr

Voting|0 Courses, Pr

Voting|0.5 Courses, SE of

No Discussion

No Discussion

1992 .462 .519 .058* .0161993-94 .297 .377 .039* .0141996 .534 .581 .047* .0171998-00 .365 .412 .047* .0152004 .464 .539 .037* .0152004-06 .426 .459 .033* .014

Pr

Voting|0 Courses, Pr

Voting|1 Course, SE of

No Discussion

No Discussion

1992 .462 .576 .114* .0301993-94 .297 .377 .080* .0291996 .534 .626 .092* .0321998-00 .365 .461 .096* .0312004 .464 .539 .075* .0302004-06 .426 .493 .067* .028

Table 4: Effects of Civic Education and Parental Political Socialization on Voting.The estimates for 1992, 1993-94, 1996 and 1998-00 are based on the NELS:1988 data. Theestimates for 2004 and 2004-06 are based on the NELS:2002 data. * p < .05.

8 Robustness of the Results

To test whether the results hold up using alternative statistical methods, I perform a match-

ing analysis in which exposure to one year of American Government/Civics coursework (ver-

sus none) is the treatment variable. Matching ensures that the control group resembles the

treatment group and, as a result, the estimates derived from the regressions using matched

data will be unbiased with respect to the observed covariates (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1985).

21


22/33

(a)NELS:1988: Before Matching

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Propensity Score

Density

Control GroupTreatment Group

(b)NELS:1988: After Matching

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Propensity Score

Density


(c) NELS:2002: Before Matching

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Propensity Score

Density


(d) NELS:2002: After Matching

0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Propensity Score

Density


Figure 6: Propensity Score Distributions for Matched and Unmatched Data.

22


23/33

Observations included in the matched analysis are those students that completed either

exactly one year of American Government/Civics coursework or none. This allows the esti-

mated effects to be easily compared to those presented in Figures 4 and 5. Because several of

the control variables are continuous, I employ nearest neighbor propensity score matching.21

Figure 6 displays, for each data set, the propensity score distributions for the treatment and

control groups before and after matching. The graphs demonstrate that the balance is much

improved in the matched data sets. More detailed statistics on the balance are presented in

Table A-2.

(a) Direct Effect of American Gov/Civics

q

q

q

q

q

q

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3


Elections

q

q

q

q

q

q

1992

199394

1996

199800

2004

200406

q

q

q

q

q

q

.045

.052

.032

.054

.034

.025

.057

.061

.049

.060

.035

.030

Unmatched 95% CIMatched 95% CI

(b) Interactive Effect of American Gov/Civics

q

q

q

q

q

q

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3


Elections

q

q

q

q

q

q

1992

199394

1996

199800

2004

200406

.111

.073

.091

.087

.074

.063

.149

.095

.126

.082

.138

.119

q

q

q

q

q

qUnmatched 95% CIMatched 95% CI

Figure 7: The Effects of Civic Education Before and After Matching. Graphs (a) and (b)present first difference estimates for both the unmatched and matched data sets. The dotted linesare the 95% confidence intervals associated with the matched estimates.

Figure 7 displays the first differences associated with a one-year increase in American

Government/Civics coursework for the both the matched and unmatched data sets. Re-garding the direct effects, the matched estimates are very similar to the unmatched esti-

21More specifically, I perform one-to-one matching with a caliper of 0.6. In the matched data sets, thetransfer variable is collinear and so it is dropped from the regressions. The regression results are presentedin Table A-1.

23


24/33

mates, although the effects for 2004 and 2004-06 elections lose statistical significance with

the matched data.

Turning to the interactive effects, the matched estimates again support the conclusion

that civic education strongly encourages students whose parents are not highly politicized

to vote. The matched estimates are all significant at the 10% level (or lower), and the

magnitudes of the effects are sizable, with the largest being a 15 percentage point boost in

the probability of turnout.

9 Conclusion

The effects of American Government/Civics coursework on turnout uncovered in this analysis

are quite large; they are comparable in size to many of the interventions displayed in Table

1. Further, because the probability that a young citizen votes in a presidential election

hovers around 50%, even a three or four percentage point increase in probability could be

the difference between this citizen turning out to vote and staying home on Election Day.

Among students whose parents are not highly politicized, the effects of American Gov-

ernment/Civics coursework are even larger. This suggests that civic education compensates

for relative lack of political socialization at home. A brief examination of the composition of

this group shows that it contains a disproportionate amount of students from the lowest SES

quartile, a demographic that is historically under-represented in politics (Verba, Schlozman

and Brady, 1995). A graph of this distribution appears in Figure A-1. Civic education,

through its ability to fill a politicizing void left by parents, may help level the participatory

playing field among young citizens.

24


25/33

Appendix

None

Some

Often

SES Q1 (lowest)

SES Q2

SES Q3

SES Q4

% of Students

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Amou

ntofDiscussion

19.1

24.2

26.7

29.9

34.3

26

22.7

16.9

44

23.5

19

13.4

Figure A-1: Socioeconomic Status and Discussion about Current Events. The percentagesfor 1992, 1993-94, 1996 and 1998-00 are from the NELS:1988 and the percentages for 2004 and 2004-06 are from the NELS:2002.

25


26/33

Legend:

1992 or BeforeBetween 1993 and 2004

2005 or Later

No State Requirement

Figure A-2: State Graduation Requirements in American Government/Civics.This map displays the time period in which each state instituted a civic education require-ment. The years refer to graduating classes. The data were collected from newspaperarticles, state statutes, state administrative codes and the LBJ School Survey of State CivicEducation (Tolo, 1999).

26


27/33

Ta

bleA-1:RegressionResults

Un

matchedData

MatchedData

1992

1993-94

1

996

1998-00

2004

2004-06

1992

1993-94

1996

1998-00

2004

2004-06

CivicEducation

AmerGov/Civics

.184

.222

.

145

.216

.146

.114

.234

.264

.222

.236

.144

.120

(.084)

(.084)

(.09)

(.082)

(.081)

(.075)

(.116)

(.115)

(.123)

(.120)

(

.121)

(.123)

AmerProblems

.131

.118

.

117

-.298

-.259

-.065

-.023

-.488

.123

.157

.628

.172

(.251)

(.225)

(.

219)

(.186)

(.342)

(.333)

(.344)

(.337)

(.311)

(.467)

(

.508)

(.542)

AmerGov/Econ

-.047

.034

.

072

.283

.285

.095

.047

-.190

.266

.140

.337

-.216

(.115)

(.115)

(.

121)

(.11)

(.103)

(.11)

(.233)

(.178)

(.259)

(.231)

(

.286)

(.223)

OtherGov

-.191

.006

.

096

.116

.088

.085

-.430

-.030

.270

.003

-.031

-.106

(.142)

(.13)

(.

179)

(.158)

(.136)

(.140)

(.227)

(.290)

(.386)

(.263)

(

.299)

(.220)

CivicEngagement

ExtracurricularHours

.038

.042

.

036

.036

.017

.018

.053

.056

.083

.057

-.003

.005

(.011)

(.011)

(.

012)

(.011)

(.009)

(.009)

(.021)

(.021)

(.024)

(.021)

(.02)

(.019)

ServiceClub

.028

.038

.

082

.091

.170

.142

.030

-.018

.290

.101

.362

.251

(.055)

(.051)

(.

059)

(.053)

(.047)

(.044)

(.102)

(.096)

(.118)

(.100)

(

.099)

(.094)

StudentGov

.168

.141

.

275

.142

.115

.151

.067

.044

.227

.159

.192

.167

(.043)

(.041)

(.

052)

(.043)

(.053)

(.053)

(.078)

(.078)

(.091)

(.088)

(

.103)

(.106)

S.S.LookForward

.034

.043

.

022

.127

.024

.154

.028

.117

(.032)

(.032)

(.

036)

(.035)

(.065)

(.066)

(.076)

(.066)

Citizenship

-Importance

.271

.258

.330

.281

(.047)

(.045)

(

.098)

(.096)

Patriotism

-Importance

.096

.110

-.015

.010

(.039)

(.039)

(

.082)

(.083)

HomeResources

ParentEducation

.047

.034

.01

.068

-.001

.002

-.010

.207

-.163

.095

-.076

-.008

(.046)

(.045)

(.05)

(.046)

(.023)

(.023)

(.088)

(.084)

(.101)

(.091)

(

.045)

(.047)

Newspaper

.077

.204

.

015

-.03

.101

.104

-.081

.118

-.023

-.214

.067

.174

(.066)

(.071)

(.

072)

(.071)

(.058)

(.058)

(.13)

(.136)

(.141)

(.14)

(

.110)

(.118)

S.E.S.Statu

s

.234

.004

.

192

-.025

.309

.239

.435

-.188

.300

-.085

.405

.215

(.072)

(.072)

(.08)

(.076)

(.066)

(.064)

(.142)

(.133)

(.162)

(.145)

(

.135)

(.14)

Discuss

.224

.232

.

317

.294

.362

.392

.404

.281

.373

.34

.573

.576

(.045)

(.046)

(.

051)

(.046)

(.041)

(.041)

(.117)

(.123)

(.133)

(.123)

(

.121)

(.117)

Discuss(Parent)

.284

.171

.

257

.195

.118

.139

.192

.198

.400

.271

.184

.209

(.045)

(.049)

(.

050)

(.049)

(.041)

(.041)

(.093)

(.091)

(.101)

(.098)

(

.089)

(.088)

StudentDemographics

Male

.035

.090

-.077

-.073

-.136

-.179

.072

-.034

.191

.051

-.083

-.193

(.058)

(.057)

(.

066)

(.059)

(.054)

(.053)

(.111)

(.111)

(.134)

(.113)

(

.121)

(.125)

Black

-.569

-.141

.

089

.179

.016

.113

-.516

-.362

-.135

.033

-.176

-.121

(.112)

(.114)

(.

128)

(.12)

(.105)

(.097)

(.200)

(.183)

(.23)

(.215)

(

.206)

(.196)

Asian

-.597

-.315

-.345

-.350

-.518

-.539

-1.079

-.412

-.560

-.370

-.481

-.662

(.127)

(.141)

(.

145)

(.154)

(.13)

(.128)

(.287)

(.314)

(.32)

(.293)

(

.269)

(.26)

Hispanic

-.074

.077

.

210

.088

-.280

-.280

-.352

-.137

.423

.173

.042

-.463

(.125)

(.127)

(.

136)

(.129)

(.101)

(.103)

(.301)

(.291)

(.346)

(.32)

(

.237)

(.237)

Amer.India

n

-.226

.074

.

104

-.111

-.105

-.057

-.163

-.175

-.301

.763

-.292

-.532

(.291)

(.286)

(.

338)

(.382)

(.301)

(.312)

(.530)

(.427)

(.721)

(.8)

(

.757)

(.841)

27


28/33

Ta

bleA-1:RegressionResults

Un

matchedData

MatchedData

1992

1993-94

1

996

1998-00

2004

2004-06

1992

1993-94

1996

1998-00

2004

2004-06

ParentEnglish

.45

.357

.

468

.444

.527

.426

.254

.479

.349

1.032

.555

.390

(.114)

(.125)

(.

128)

(.129)

(.103)

(.102)

(.258)

(.252)

(.314)

(.326)

(

.232)

(.215)

H.S.Diplom

a

.38

.423

.

282

.222

.329

.349

.336

.472

-.199

.493

.108

.334

(.210)

(.238)

(.

241)

(.254)

(.212)

(.227)

(.442)

(.516)

(.482)

(.535)

(

.356)

(.376)

TransferStu

dent

-.181

-.078

-.361

-.337

-.096

.741

(.122)

(.123)

(.

143)

(.134)

(.604)

(.559)

SchoolandState

Chars.

Urban

.023

-.015

.

076

.053

.022

-.008

.202

.096

.179

.218

.074

-.009

(.087)

(.084)

(.

086)

(.087)

(.082)

(.08)

(.167)

(.169)

(.178)

(.159)

(

.139)

(.139)

Rural

-.015

.055

.

011

.145

.024

.024

-.052

.081

-.059

.249

.297

.336

(.079)

(.079)

(.

077)

(.077)

(.085)

(.082)

(.144)

(.146)

(.145)

(.154)

(

.214)

(.204)

Private

-.116

-.084

.

106

-.008

-.009

.042

-.323

-.197

.124

-.31

-.104

-.14

(.109)

(.11)

(.

115)

(.112)

(.092)

(.09)

(.203)

(.22)

(.235)

(.212)

(

.168)

(.169)

%

AttendingCollege

.053

-.030

.

016

.015

.035

.017

.036

-.117

.074

.105

.060

.058

(.033)

(.037)

(.

034)

(.035)

(.034)

(.033)

(.063)

(.064)

(.068)

(.069)

(

.076)

(.073)

StateReq.Civ.Ed.

.061

.022

.

041

.185

-.079

-.034

.337

.115

.099

.215

.091

.222

(.068)

(.067)

(.

069)

(.066)

(.071)

(.069)

(.129)

(.131)

(.124)

(.131)

(

.132)

(.131)

Interaction

AmerGov/Civics

Discuss

-.308

-.155

-.247

-.194

-.149

-.160

-.420

-.177

-.345

-.107

-.399

-.342

(.105)

(.105)

(.

119)

(.106)

(.087)

(.079)

(.163)

(.164)

(.183)

(.170)

(

.171)

(.161)

(Constant)

-1.914

-2.176

-1

.247

-2.17

-1.919

-1.969

-1.322

-2.744

-1.12

-3.693

-1.72

-2.178

(.361)

(.361)

(.

378)

(.369)

(.338)

(.355)

(.707)

(.729)

(.737)

(.739)

(

.636)

(.662)

N

5775

5769

4

985

5010

6565

6575

1560

1560

1346

1340

1542

1544

Estimatesarelogitcoefficients.Clusteredstandarderrors

areshowninparentheses.

AmerGov/Civic

siscodedasdummyvariableforthematchedregressions,where1indicatescomp

letionofayear-longcourse.

28


29/33

NELS:1988

NELS:2002

Unmatched

Matched

Unmatched

Matched

M

ean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Tre

ated

Control

Treated

Control

Treated

Control

Treated

Control

DependentVariables(0,1

)

Voted1992

0.59

0.55

0.

59

0.

54

Voted1993-94

0.

43

0.

38

0.

44

0.

38

Voted1996

0.

67

0.

62

0.

67

0.

61

Voted1998-00

0.

52

0.

45

0.

51

0.

47

Voted2004

0.60

0.59

0.61

0.58

Voted2004-06

0.57

0.56

0.58

0.56

Covariates

AmerP

roblems(#

ofcredits)

0.

01

0.

07

0.02

0.03

0.

01

0.

02

0.01

0.01

AmerG

ov/Econ(#

ofcredits)

0.

05

0.

17

0.06

0.09

0.

02

0.

20

0.

03

0.

07

OtherGov(#

ofcredits)

0.

03

0.

09

0.03

0.05

0.

03

0.

09

0.05

0.05

ExtracurricularHours(#

perweek)

3.81

3.89

3.78

3.86

6.76

6.91

6.90

6.74

Service

Club(0,1,2)

0.31

0.33

0.32

0.34

0.

38

0.

44

0.43

0.41

StudentGov(1,2,3)

0.43

0.41

0.41

0.42

0.27

0.26

0.27

0.28

S.S.Lo

okForward(1,2,3)

2.

57

2.

70

2.62

2.60

Citizen

ship-Importance(1,2,3)

2.40

2.37

2.41

2.41

Patriot

ism

-Importance(1,2,3)

2.

21

2.

13

2.14

2.17

Parent

Edu.(6categories)

3.

12

3.

41

3.23

3.21

4.

77

4.

92

5.

05

4.

81

Newspaper(0,1)

0.77

0.79

0.78

0.77

0.67

0.69

0.69

0.67

S.E.S.(

-2.25,2.2)

0.

06

0.

24

0.14

0.12

0.

17

0.

25

0.

30

0.

21

Discuss(0,1,2)

1.92

1.91

1.92

1.91

2.07

2.04

2.04

2.07

Discuss(Parent;0,1,2)

2.36

2.38

2.36

2.36

2.36

2.38

2.37

2.37

Male(0,1)

0.45

0.46

0.43

0.47

0.50

0.48

0.49

0.48

Black(

0,1)

0.07

0.07

0.08

0.06

0.10

0.08

0.09

0.08

Asian(0,1)

0.

04

0.

08

0.05

0.05

0.

06

0.

08

0.08

0.07

Hispanic(0,1)

0.

04

0.

06

0.05

0.03

0.07

0.09

0.10

0.09

Amer.

Indian(0,1)

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

Parent

English(0,1)

0.

94

0.

88

0.92

0.94

0.

89

0.

86

0.85

0.87

H.S.Diploma(0,1)

0.

99

0.

98

0.99

0.99

0.

99

0.

98

0.98

0.98

Transfe

r(0,1)

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Urban

(0,1)

0.24

0.26

0.27

0.24

0.

32

0.

28

0.33

0.3

Rural(

0,1)

0.

45

0.

33

0.

36

0.

43

0.

29

0.

16

0.

16

0.

21

Private

(0,1)

0.16

0.18

0.19

0.18

0.

24

0.

32

0.

33

0.

28

%

Atte

ndingCollege(6categories)

4.35

4.41

4.40

4.39

4.

56

4.

93

4.

96

4.

77

StateR

eq.Civ.Ed.(0,1)

0.

51

0.

35

0.41

0.42

0.

74

0.

41

0.59

0.59

TableA-2:BalanceStatisticsforMatche

dandUnmatchedData.

Numbersinboldindicatetha

tthedifference

29


30/33

References

Alvarez, R. Michael, Delia Bailey and Jonathan N. Katz. 2008. The Effect of Voter Iden-tification Laws on Turnout. California Institute of Technology Social Science WorkingPaper No. 1267R .

Anderson, Lee, Lynn B. Jenkins, James Leming, Walter B. McDonald, Ina V.S. Mullis,Mary Jane Turner and Judith S. Wooster. 1990. The Civics Report Card: Trends inAchievement from 1976 to 1988 at Ages 13 and 17; Achievement in 1988 at Grades 4, 8,and 12. National Center for Education Statistics.

Boas, Katherine. December 17, 2002. American Civics Class to be Added at Ponanganset.Providence Journal-Bulletin .

Brians, Craig Leonard and Bernard Grofman. 2001. Election Day Registrations Effect onU.S. Voter Turnout. Social Science Quarterly 82(1):170182.

Current Population Survey. 2010. Voting and Registration Supplement. U.S. Census Bureau.

Curtin, Thomas R., Steven J. Ingels, Shiying Wu, Ruth Heuer and Jeffrey Owings. 2002.Base-Year to Fourth Follow-up Data File Users Manual. National Center for EducationStatistics.

Dale, Allison and Aaron Strauss. 2009. Dont Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders asa Mobilization Tool. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):787804.

Delli Carpini, Michael and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics andWhy it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ehman, Lee H. 1969. An Analysis of the Relationships of Selected Educational Variableswith the Political Socialization of High School Students. American Educational ResearchJournal 6(4):559580.

Fenster, Mark J. 1994. The Impact of Allowing Day of Registration Voting on Turnout inU.S. Elections from 1960 to 1992: A Research Note. American Politics Research22(1):7487.

Franklin, Daniel P. and Eric E. Grier. 1997. Effects of Motor Voter Legislation: VoterTurnout, Registration, and Partisan Advantage in the 1992 Presidential Election. Amer-ican Politics Research 25(1):104117.

Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000. The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls,and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political ScienceReview 94(4):653663.

Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2001. Do Phone Calls Increase Voter Turnout? AField Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 65:7585.

30


31/33

Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green and Ron Shachar. 2003. Voting May Be Habit-Forming:Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science47(3):540550.

Gimpel, James G., J. Celeste Lay and Jason E. Schuknecht. 2003. Cultivating Democracy:

Civic Environments and Political Socialization in America. Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution Press.

Green, Donald P., Alan S. Gerber and David W. Nickerson. 2003. Getting out the Votein Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments. Journal ofPolitics65(4):10831096.

Hess, Robert D. and Judith V. Torney. 1967. The Development of Political Attitudes inChildren. Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co.

Highton, Benjamin and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 2001. The First Seven Years of the PoliticalLife Cycle. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):202209.

Ingels, Steven J., Daniel J. Pratt, David Wilson, Laura J. Burns, Douglas Currivan, James E.Rogers and Sherry Hubbard-Bednasz. 2007. Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 Base-Year to Second Follow-up Data File and Documentation. National Center for EducationStatistics.

Jennings, M. Kent, Gregory B. Markus, Richard G. Niemi and Laura Stoker. 1997. Youth-Parent Socialization Study, 1965-1997: Four Waves Combined. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Jennings, M. Kent, Laura Stoker and Jake Bowers. 2009. Politics Across Generations:

Family Transmission Reexamined. Journal of Politics 71(2):118.Kiousis, Spiro and Michael McDevitt. 2008. Agenda Setting in Civic Development: Effects

of Curricula and Issue Importance on Youth Voter Turnout. Communication Researchpp. 122.

Knack, Stephen. 1995. Does Motor Voter Work? Evidence from State-Level Data. Jour-nal of Politics 57(3):796811.

Knack, Stephen. 2001. Elecion-day Registration: The Second Wave. American PoliticsResearch 29(1):6578.

Langton, Kenneth P. and M. Kent Jennings. 1968. Political Socialization and the HighSchool Civics Curriculum in the United States. American Political Science Review62(3):852867.

Leff, Lisa. August 26, 1993. Path to Diploma Has New Wrinkles: Schools Phasing inTougher Requirements for Students on the Road to Graduation. Washington Post .

31


32/33

Litt, Edgar. 1963. Civic Education, Community Norms, and Political Indoctrination.American Sociological Review 28(1):6975.

McDevitt, Michael and Spiro Kiousis. 2004. Education for Deliberative Democracy: TheLong-term Influence of Kids Voting USA. Medford, MA: Center for Information and

Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.Meirick, Patrick C. and Daniel B. Wackman. 2004. Kids Voting and Political Knowledge:

Narrowing Gaps, Informing Votes. Social Science Quarterly 85(5):11611177.

Mitchell, Glenn E. and Christopher Wlezien. 1995. The Impact of Legal Constraints onVoter Registration, Turnout, and the Composition of the American Electorate. PoliticalBehavior 17(2):179202.

Nickerson, David W. 2006. Volunteer Phone Calls Can Increase Turnout: Evidence fromEight Field Experiments. American Politics Research 34(3):271292.

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

Niemi, Richard G. and Julia Smith. 2001. Enrollments in High School Government Classes:Are We Short-Changing Both Citizenship and Political Science Training? PS: PoliticalScience and Politics 34:281287.

Niemi, Richard G. and Julia Smith. 2003. The Accuracy of Students Reports of CourseTaking in the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Measure-ment: Issues and Practice 22(1):1521.

Pasek, John, Lauren Feldman, Daniel Romer and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. 2008. Schools asIncubators of Democratic Participation: Building Long-Term Political Efficacy with CivicEducation. Applied Developmental Science 12(1):2637.

Popkin, Samuel L. and Michael A. Dimock. 1999. Political Knowledge and Citizen Com-petence. In Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions, ed. Stephen L. Elkin andKarol Edward Soltan. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Ravitch, Diane. March 9, 2010. Why I Changed My Mind about School Reform. WallStreet Journal .

Rhine, Staci L. 1995. Registration Reform and Turnout Change in the American States.

American Politics Research 23(4):409426.

Roey, Stephen, Robert Perkins, Nancy Caldwell, Keith Rust and Janis Brown. 2007. The2000 High School Transcript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earnedand Demographics for 2000, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1987, and 1982 High School Graduates.National Center for Education Statistics.

32


33/33

Rosenbaum, Paul R. and Donald B. Rubin. 1985. Constructing a Control Group UsingMultivariate Matched Sampling Methods. The American Statistician 39(1):3338.

Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democ-racy in America. New York, NY: Longman.

Shettle, Carolyn, Shep Roey, Joy Mordica, Robert Perkins, Christine Nord, Jelena Teodor-ovic, Janis Brown, Marsha Lyons, Chris Averett and David Kastberg. 2007. AmericasHigh School Graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study. Na-tional Center for Education Statistics.

Simon, James and Bruce D. Merrill. 1998. Political Socialization in the Classroom Revisted:The Kids Voting Program. Social Science Journal 35(1):2942.

Squire, Peverill, Raymond E. Wolfinger and David P. Glass. 1987. Residential Mobility andVoter Turnout. American Political Science Review 81(1):4566.

Stoker, Laura and M. Kent Jennings. 1995. Life-Cycle Transitions and Political Participa-tion: The Case of Marriage. American Political Science Review 89(2):421433.

Strate, John M., Charles J. Parrish, Charles D. Elder and Coit Ford. 1989. Life Span CivicDevelopment and Voting Participation. American Political Science Review83(2):443464.

Tedin, Kent L. 1974. The Influence of Parents on the Political Attitudes of Adolescents.American Political Science Review 68(4):15791592.

Teixeira, Ruy A. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: BrookingsInstitution.

Tolo, Kenneth. 1999. School Survey of State Civic Education (K-12) Requirements andPolicies. Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.

Valentino, Nicholas A. and David O. Sears. 1998. Event-Driven Political Communicationand the Preadult Socialization of Partisanship. Political Behavior 20(2):127154.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: CivicVoluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vontz, Thomas S., Kim K. Metcalf and John J. Patrick. 2000. Project Citizen and the CivicDevelopment of Adolescent Students in Indiana, Latvia and Lithuania. Washington, DC:Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

33

from classroom to voting booth: the effect of high school civic education on turnout - jennifer...

Documents