Civics Education for Students With Learning Disabilities and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

Significant disparities in civics achievement between students with disabilities and their peers constitute an urgent need to support and improve civics education and outcomes for students receiving special education services related to emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and learning disabilities (LD). In the documented instances when social studies interventions are evaluated by researchers in schools for students with EBD or LD, the focus is most often on geography, history, and text-based content acquisition and comprehension. However, the information learned during civics instruction most directly prepares students for active participation in their communities.

Keywords

social studies civics education citizenship emotional and behavioral disorders learning disability

Education is designed to prepare students for active participation in a democratic society (Dewey, 1916) and social studies is the content area tasked with developing young people’s ability to make reasoned decisions that serve the public good (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 2018). Unfortunately, many students with disabilities are increasingly at risk of being marginalized and unable to enjoy fully informed participation in society (Mann et al., 2015). For instance, pervasive knowledge gaps related to citizenship skills are reflected on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2014) civics exam. Only 7% of all students with disabilities (compared with 23% of students without disabilities), which includes students receiving services for emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) or a learning disability (LD), scored at a proficient level in civics. Mann et al. (2015) called for least restrictive citizenship (i.e., an ability to actively engage in and shape one’s community) by urging schools to ensure all students, including those with disabilities, be afforded learning opportunities that prepare them for “meaningful, productive roles in their communities, the nation, and the world” (p. 68). This article (a) discusses the need to improve citizenship outcomes for students with EBD and LD, (b) illustrates how civics education plays a role in these outcomes, (c) discusses relevant standards that can be addressed through effective instruction, and (d) highlights the pressing need for more empirical studies to establish research-based practices for teachers serving students with EBD and LD.

The Need to Improve Civics Outcomes

In an era of high-stakes testing in reading and mathematics, as well as an increased legislative focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, social studies has been pushed to the margins of the school curriculum (Fitchett et al., 2014; Hartshorne et al., 2019). In the documented instances when social studies interventions are evaluated by researchers in schools for students with EBD or LD, the focus is most often on geography, history, and text-based content acquisition and comprehension (Garwood, McKenna, et al., 2019; Wissinger & Ciullo, 2018). However, the information learned during civics instruction most directly prepares students for active participation in their communities (Hamot et al., 2005). Examples include (a) understanding how to register to vote, (b) researching candidates and policy issues through credible sources, (c) knowledge of the roles and functions of local, state, and national government, (d) community improvement projects, (e) expression of freedom of speech, and (f) discussing civil and legal rights. The importance of preparation in this area is particularly salient when one considers recent issues with the civic well-being (e.g., hyper-partisanship and a fraying of civil discourse about societal issues) of the United States (Gordon, 2018). Therefore, civics education is critical because students with EBD and LD need to understand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship and how their actions can positively influence their communities.

A key practice in preparing students with disabilities for the postsecondary world is transition planning, whereby members of the individualized education program (IEP) team, including parents/guardians and youth themselves, actively create a plan for a student’s life after high school (Seong et al., 2015). Despite its importance, there was a significant decrease from 2003 to 2012 in the percentage of youth with EBD and youth with LD whose parents participated in transition planning for their children (Liu et al., 2018). Although no causal effect between lack of transition planning and negative postsecondary outcomes can be inferred, the available citizenship data for students with EBD and LD are alarming. Within 8 years of leaving high school, youth with LD have the second highest rate (54.7%) of all students with disabilities of overall involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests, stops by the police, serving probation; Newman et al., 2011), while youth with EBD have the lowest rate (33%) of community participation (e.g., involvement in volunteer community service activities; Sanford et al., 2011) and the highest rate of criminal arrest 60.5% (Newman et al., 2011). Too many students with EBD and LD are struggling to achieve positive postsecondary outcomes related to productive citizenship. A productive citizen is one who obeys laws, engages positively in their community, and works to help improve society in some way (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Because students with disabilities indicate school is their primary source of civics/citizenship knowledge (Hamot et al., 2005), it is plausible that a renewed focus on civics learning for students with EBD and LD throughout their school careers could in-part improve their postsecondary outcomes.

Standards Related to Civics Education

Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia address civic education in state statutes, such as requiring students to attain civics credits for graduation and high school exit exams (Rafa et al., 2016). In 2013, the NCSS (2013) worked with state education agencies and leading organizations in the field to develop the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies standards. Along with history, economics and geography, authors of the C3 framework assert that civics education is central to a robust K–12 curriculum that prepares students for successful postsecondary futures.

Civics education targets processes and rules by which groups of people make decisions, govern themselves, and address public issues (Galston, 2004). Moreover, civics education requires knowledge of local governments, courts and legal systems, civil society, and other nations’ systems and practices (NCSS, 2013). To align with these views, the C3 framework has defined standards across grade-level bands (e.g., K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12) in three areas: (a) civic and political institutions, (b) participation and deliberation, and (c) processes, rules, and laws. To illustrate, in Kindergarten–Grade 2 students are taught the roles and responsibilities of people (D2.Civ.1.K–2) and the purpose of rules in various settings in and outside the school setting (D2.Civ.1.K–2). By middle school, these same students are expected to understand the power and responsibilities of political parties, interest groups, and the media in a variety of governmental contexts (D2.Civ.1.6–8). Upon graduation, students must understand how the U.S. Constitution establishes a system of government that has powers (D2.Civ.4.9–12), as well as evaluate citizens’ and institutions’ effectiveness in addressing social and political problems, at the state, national, or international levels (D2.Civ.5.9–12).

Similar to standards in history, civics standards in the C3 Framework emphasize the need for students to identify the beliefs, experiences, perspectives, and values that underlie their and others’ points of view about civic issues (D2.Civ.10.3–5). Students must also compare multiple historical and contemporary means of changing societies and promoting the common good (D2.Civ.14.6–8). Thus, in addition to understanding critical processes that encompass democracy and active citizenship in a free society, civics educators must account for the perspectives of multiple actors and interpretations (NCSS, 2013).

Civic Opportunities

Instruction targeting the civics knowledge of students with EBD and LD can play a helpful role in improving postsecondary civic opportunities. As mentioned at the outset, there are few studies targeting civic knowledge for teaching students with EBD and LD about citizenship. However, there are promising practices that can serve as a starting place, and opportunities for advancing instruction in this academic domain.

Reverse Marginalization Trends

Data suggest that schools devote insufficient instructional time to social studies and civics education (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Hartshorne et al., 2019). This devaluing of social studies and civics education has occurred due to educational policies that have emphasized STEM education and standardized tests in reading and mathematics (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010; Galston, 2004). However, it is possible to reverse these concerning trends in regards to the degree to which all students, and by extension, students with EBD and LD, are provided learning opportunities in the area of civics education. First, stakeholders invested in the education provided to all students must advocate for the importance and role of civics education in K–12 schooling. It is not enough merely to include social studies content in reading passages as a part of literacy instruction (Fitchett & Heafner, 2010). Rather, there must be attention to domain-specific content (e.g., citizenship skills) within social studies (Garwood, McKenna, et al., 2019). Public education has an important role in preparing students to be active citizens and for participation in democracy. Potential forums for advocacy efforts include (a) IEP team meetings, particularly when discussing a student’s vision statement and transition plan, (b) school and district leadership meetings, and (c) school committee meetings. These trends can also be addressed by providing teachers training and implementation support for the use of instructional practices with demonstrated effectiveness for improving content area knowledge of students EBD and students with LD. However, research-based practices must first be identified before teachers can integrate them into their repertoire of instructional methods and strategies (McKenna et al., 2019).

Boost Conceptual Understanding

It has been well-documented that students with LD and EBD experience challenges with reading (Wei et al., 2011) and writing (Graham et al., 2017) that influence their classroom performance across different subject areas. Conceptual understanding can be enhanced if educators are taught to identify and implement effective interventions. For example, multi-component interventions that include the provision of background knowledge, explicit vocabulary instruction, extended text reading, peer discussion, and carefully sequenced activities are effective at improving content area learning for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms (Swanson et al., 2015). Evidence from the intervention literature shows students with EBD and LD also benefit from content enhancement tools such as graphic organizers, mnemonic illustrations, cognitive strategy instruction (i.e., text structure, main idea identifiers, questioning), peer tutoring, and material modifications (Garwood, 2018; Swanson et al., 2014). These interventions and learning strategies can be integrated into civics education, particularly when reading is involved and new concepts are introduced. When engaging in evidence-based practice as a decision-making process (i.e., considering which instructional approaches to utilize; Cook et al., 2016), it is recommended that educators consider this research evidence in concert with their values and professional judgment when planning civics instruction. In other words, teachers should ensure their pedagogical choices have sufficient backing in research, but that the teaching methods also match the unique needs of their students.

Promote Reasoning Skills

An informed citizenry is composed of individuals who are expected to make reasoned decisions that serve the public good (NCCS, 2018). This skill, logical reasoning, is not intuitive; rather it must be taught. One mechanism to address students’ reasoning skills is to focus on their writing abilities. Specifically, persuasive and argumentative writing improves reasoning skills because it teaches students perspective-taking by asking them to consider counter-arguments, develop a plan to refute against those points, and use evidence to support conclusions about controversial topics (De La Paz et al., 2012). Persuasive writing research using the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) model with adolescents with EBD and LD has shown promising effects for improving writing quality (Garwood, Werts, et al., 2019; Mason & Graham, 2008), but the focus of this research has not extended to civics content. Persuasive writing also teaches students to consider the source of information they are reading and to question its authenticity (i.e., sourcing; Monte-Sano & De La Paz, 2012).

Youth today are coming of age in an era of “fake news” and “alternative facts” and this post-truth culture constitutes a real threat to civics education and the ability of students to engage in democratic discourse (Gordon, 2018). Teaching students to critique supporting evidence and utilize argumentative strategies to address controversial topics can improve their critical thinking skills and their ability to arrive at reasoned conclusions about an issue (De La Paz et al., 2012). Recent studies using a disciplinary approach (i.e., approaching a discipline as an expert in a field would) to instruction and targeting the history knowledge and argumentative writing skills of students with LD have shown promise in improving students’ abilities to learn historical content and improving the quality of their reasoning in written responses (De La Paz & Wissinger, 2017; Wissinger & De La Paz, 2016). These approaches may prove useful in improving students’ civics knowledge and citizenship skills. One study used the SRSD model to improve the persuasive writing of students with EBD in the area of civics and mathematics (Hauth et al., 2013). Results were positive, but the primary focus was on the quantity of student writing rather than the quality of reasoning skills. Still, these studies provide researchers with possible avenues for future empirical inquiry. In turn, researchers and teacher-preparation faculty can increase efforts in sharing effective practices, and the sources that translate research to practice, with practitioners.

New Directions for Civics Learning

In light of the research gap related to civics interventions for students with EBD and LD, four suggestions are identified that the field may need to explore. First, there is a need to replicate interventions that have been successful in improving student knowledge of history (e.g., mnemonics, graphic organizers, disciplinary literacy approaches; De La Paz & Wissinger, 2017; Scruggs et al., 2010) with a focus on civics content knowledge. Replication studies using designs with strong internal validity are necessary to identify research-based practices for eventual practitioner adoption (Travers et al., 2016).

Second, future research should investigate the active engagement and participation of students with EBD or LD in peer-based discussions of texts (e.g., Swanson et al., 2015) that specifically focus on civic processes. Interacting with others in a civil and respectful manner is a cornerstone of democracy and students must be provided ample opportunities to engage with one another on controversial topics (Gordon, 2018).

Third, project-based learning, which has some initial evidence of effectiveness for enhancing the knowledge and understanding of historical controversies for students with LDs (MacArthur et al., 2002), should be further explored for students learning citizenship skills.

Finally, more professional development (PD) opportunities are needed that are focused on ways special educators and social studies teachers can collaborate/coteach to address the civics content knowledge of students with EBD and LD are needed. These research studies can ideally inform the content of such PD, as well as follow up coaching to promote fidelity of implementation (McKenna et al., 2014). Tackling these research and practice issues may help move our society to “least restrictive citizenship” (Mann et al., 2015), whereby all students have equal opportunity to shape and participate in the democracy within which they live.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Cook

B. G.

Cook

Collins

L. W.

(2016). Terminology and evidence-based practice for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Exploring some devilish details. Beyond Behavior, 25, 4–13.

De La Paz

Ferretti

Wissinger

Yee

Macrthur

(2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication, 29, 412–454.

De La Paz

Wissinger

(2017). Improving the historical knowledge and writing of students with or at risk for LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 658–671.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.

Fitchett

P. G.

Heafner

T. L.

(2010). A national perspective on the effect of high-stakes testing and standardization on elementary social studies marginalization. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38, 114–130.

Fitchett

P. G.

Heafner

T. L.

Lambert

R. G.

(2014). Examining elementary social studies marginalization: A multilevel model. Educational Policy, 28, 40–68.

Galston

W. A.

(2004). Civic education and political participation. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37, 263–266.

Garwood

J. D.

(2018). Literacy interventions for secondary students formally identified with emotional and behavioral disorders: Trends and gaps in the research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27, 23–52.

Garwood

J. D.

McKenna

Roberts

G. J.

Ciullo

Shin

(2019). Social studies content knowledge interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519834622

10.

Garwood

J. D.

Werts

M. G.

Mason

L. H.

Harris

Austin

M. B.

Ciullo

. . . Shin

(2019). Improving persuasive science writing for secondary students with emotional and behavioral disorders educated in residential treatment facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 44, 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0198742918809341

11.

Gordon

(2018). Lying in politics: Fake news, alternative facts, and the challenges of deliberative civics education. Educational Theory, 68, 49–64.

12.

Graham

Collins

A. A.

Rigby-Wills

(2017). Writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and typically achieving peers: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 83, 199–218.

13.

Hamot

G. E.

Shokoohi-Yekta

Sasso

G. M.

(2005). Civic competencies and students with disabilities. Journal of Social Studies Research, 29, 34–45.

14.

Hartshorne

Warnig

S. M.

Okraski

(2019). Developing well-informed, critically thinking, and active citizens through the connection of modeling & simulation and social studies. The Clearing House, 92, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1571988

15.

Hauth

Mastropieri

Scruggs

Regan

(2013). Can students with emotional and behavioral disabilities improve on planning and writing in the content areas of civics and mathematics? Behavioral Disorders, 38, 154–170.

16.

Liu

A. Y.

Lacoe

Lipscomb

Haimson

Johnson

D. R.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2018). Preparing for life after high school: The characteristics and experiences of youth in special education. Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012. Vol. 3: Comparisons over time (Full report, NCEE 2018-4007). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

17.

MacArthur

C. A.

Ferretti

R. P.

Okolo

C. M.

(2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th-century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 160–172.

18.

Mann

J. A.

Dymond

S. K.

Bonati

M. L.

Neeper

L. S.

(2015). Restrictive citizenship: Civic-oriented service-learning opportunities for all students. Journal of Experiential Education, 38, 56–72.

19.

Mason

L. H.

Graham

(2008). Writing instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Programs of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 103–112.

20.

McKenna

Flower

Ciullo

(2014). Measuring fidelity to improve intervention effectiveness. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 15–21.

21.

McKenna

Solis

Brigham

Adamson

(2019). The responsible inclusion of students receiving special education services for emotional disturbance: Unraveling the practice to research gap. Behavior Modification, 43, 587–611.

22.

Monte-Sano

De La Paz

(2012). Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. Journal of Literacy Research, 44, 273–299.

23.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). New results show eighth-graders’ knowledge of U.S. history, geography, and civics. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Progress. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hgc_2014/#

24.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history.

25.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2018). About National Council for the Social Studies. https://www.socialstudies.org/about

26.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

. . . Schwarting

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). SRI International.

27.

Rafa

Rogowski

Railey

Brennan

Baumann

Aragon

(2016). 50-state comparison: Civic education policies. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

28.

Sanford

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A.-M.

Shaver

, & The National Center for Special Education Research. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school: Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3004, National Center for Special Education Research). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

29.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Berkely

Graetz

J. E.

(2010). Do special education interventions improve learning of secondary content? A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 437–449.

30.

Seong

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Little

T. D.

(2015). Effects of the self-directed individualized education program on self-determination and transition of adolescents with disabilities. Career Development and Transition of Exceptional Individuals, 38, 132–141.

31.

Swanson

Hairrell

Kent

Ciullo

Wanzek

J. A.

Vaughn

(2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 178–195.

32.

Swanson

Wanzek

Vaughn

Roberts

Fall

(2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81, 426–442.

33.

Travers

Cook

Therrien

Coyne

(2016). Replication research and special education. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 195–204.

34.

Wei

Blackorby

Schiller

(2011). Growth in reading achievement of students with disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78, 89–106.

35.

Westheimer

Kahne

(2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 237–269.

36.

Wissinger

D. R.

Ciullo

(2018). Historical literacy research for students with and at risk for learning disabilities: A systematic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 237–249.

37.

Wissinger

D. R.

De La Paz

(2016). Effects of critical discussions on middle school students’ written historical arguments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 43–59.