When the blueprint for the nation’s report card on civics was last updated, in 1996, there was no social media, no super PACs in campaign finance, and no federal Department of Homeland Security.
Now, the board that oversees the test, the only nationally comparable gauge of civics education, is working to update it for a world of more information, less volunteerism, and more complicated engagement in citizenship in the United States.
Although the process has already started to spark partisan debates, the National Assessment Governing Board’s decision to provide state-level civics data with the next test helps build momentum for states to reimagine civics education, according to Donna Phillips, the president of the Center for Civic Education, a nonprofit which works with states and districts to improve civics standards and materials.
“How do we measure a reflective patriotism where you’re always looking at how we strive towards a more perfect union?” Phillips said. “It’s not just testing the knowledge, because that doesn’t do much unless you are doing something with it as a citizen.”
Phillips spoke with Education Week about the most urgent updates she feels the NAEP civics test and the field in general need. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
How do you think state data on civics will change the field?
Bringing civics into that realm where states will be able to have their own data related to the state of their civics programs and education is huge for the field.
First and foremost, it gives greater parity for civics in comparison to other disciplines like English, math, and science. Up until now, only literacy and math data were available state by state, so this is a strong signal from NAGB and our national government. [Editor’s note: science data was released at the state level in 2019, but only national data was released in the most recent 2024 test.] The measures that matter get reported, and that’s what gets prioritized in state policy and then state funding and education.
What momentum are you seeing in states for creating a more substantive civics assessment?
There’s momentum, but it’s not necessarily all coming from the same direction or all going in the same direction. Since 2015, there’s been growing use of the naturalization exam as a summative assessment or for students to graduate high school in some states—and only one state requires that students actually pass the exam.
It’s a marker put down by a state legislature or state board of ed. to say, “we value civics.” But that’s a real low threshold.
In 2022, student performance on the NAEP civics declined for the first time in the test’s history. What do you think is at the root of that drop?
When that dip first came out, a lot of people thought, “well, it’s because of the pandemic,” but really it was trending downward over two decades; because of No Child Left Behind, there hasn’t been a priority placed on civics or history as there was on math and literacy. That’s changing little by little. Because of America’s 250th [anniversary of the Declaration of Independence], there’s a lot more national attention on the need for civics as a priority, but it has not caught hold at every level that it needs to yet.
What aspects of civics assessment and education most need updating?
One is taking into account our new landscape. Part of our duty as civic educators is to make sure students have a measure of media literacy, and that wasn’t part of the landscape 30 years ago. But it’s an essential civic skill for students to understand how to look for reliable sources, compare the sources to corroborate information, and understand the significance of what they’re looking at. And then AI adds another layer of urgency for students to have these skills, and also the mindset to question.
How can teachers and policymakers navigate updates to civic education and assessment amid the current, highly divisive partisan landscape?
Unfortunately, civics tends to take on the cultural wars, even though they do not need to be present in a civics exam. I think that’s where it gets a little tricky because you could get a lot of partisan arguing about what [civic engagement] should be. Any new update to the framework has to be durable, you know; it has to be above partisanship.
We know what literacy looks like; we can have proof of whether they have comprehension or phonics [skills]. But how do we know we’re doing good civics?
We want students to know what the three branches of government are—and to know which level of government they would go to if they had a pothole versus if they had an opinion about a national law. But we also want them to engage, which can mean so many different things: That can mean they vote; they sign up for military service; they stay informed; they know how to have civil dialogue with a neighbor.
I’ll go out on a limb: I think civics education creates patriotism and creates patriotic young people who—because they understand their government and why we have it, why we have a democracy and how it works—appreciate it, love it, and also want to make it better and know how to make it better in large and small ways.
