Content uploaded by Joel Westheimer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joel Westheimer on Apr 27, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221086773
Teachers College Record
2022, Vol. 124(3) 42 –60
© Teachers College 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/01614681221086773
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcz
Article
Can Teacher Education Save
Democracy?
Joel Westheimer, PhD1
Abstract
Background/Context: Social scientists, policymakers, and commentators have
long assumed that Western democracies enjoy relative stability because of deep
commitments to a culture of democratic governance. But those commitments are
quickly fading in almost every developed and developing democracy around the
globe. In the same period in which support for democracy has declined, schools
and teacher education programs have been pressured by “accountability” measures
and economic austerity to focus on math and literacy achievement to the exclusion
of nearly every other educational goal. These challenges to social cohesion and
democratic governance highlight the need for young people to be exposed early on
and throughout their educational pathways to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
consistent with democratic life. The narrowing of curricular goals, therefore, is a
threat to the stability of democratic institutions.
Purpose: This essay examines the potential of teacher education as a lever for
change. How might teacher educators ensure that teachers are prepared to foster
education that will sustain and strengthen democratic norms? If schools have an
essential role to play in preparing students for informed engagement in civic and
political life, how can we best prepare teachers to advance those goals?
Research Design: This is an analytical essay drawing on recent empirical research
on declining support for democratic values and on teachers’ civic engagement as
well as conceptual work on democratic education goals. To illustrate the potential
for teacher education to prepare teachers to engage students in political issues
discussions, I draw on data from the first large-scale empirical study of what U.S. high
school teachers currently do to prepare youth to understand economic inequality
and its causes, effects, and possible remedies. The study included a teacher survey
and follow-up interviews concerning teachers’ political ideology and civic and political
engagement as well as classroom practice. The 2,750 teachers who participated in the
1University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Joel Westheimer, University of Ottawa, 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.
Email: joelwestheimer@mac.com
1086773TCZXXX10.1177/01614681221086773Teachers College RecordWestheimer
research-article2022
Westheimer 43
survey are representative of U.S. public schools (and an additional segment of U.S.
elite independent schools) in terms of student demographics and geographic location.
We also conducted 150 follow-up interviews.
Conclusions/Recommendations: I suggest that teacher education must move
from reactive technocratic concerns for accountability and standardization to broader
civic and civil commitments to the foundations of democratic community, pluralism,
and relationship. Teacher education programs should consider ways to encourage
new and experienced teachers to follow the news, engage in civil discourse with
one another about topics of public concern, and participate in civic and political life.
Moreover, teacher educators could work toward teaching the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions associated with political and civic engagement.
Keywords
teacher education, democracy, civic education, standards, political engagement
“Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.”
—John Dewey (1916, p. 139)
On January 6, 2021, thousands of Americans gathered in Washington, D.C., at the
Ellipse, just south of the White House, to hear the President of the United States call
his election defeat an “egregious assault on our democracy.” He told the crowd that it
was statistically impossible for him to have lost the election and that to save democ-
racy, protect the country, and protect the constitution, the election results had to be
overturned. Those gathered will “never take back our country with weakness,” he said,
and “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Then he
invited them to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol building to give legis-
lators, “the weak ones . . . the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back
our country” (Trump, 2021). Two hours later, an armed throng of Americans stormed
the U.S. Capitol building, shattering glass, vandalizing offices, and breaking into the
congressional debating chambers where members of the Senate and the House were in
the process of certifying the electoral college vote. At least five people were killed in
the mayhem including a 42-year-old Capitol police officer (Rucker, 2021). One week
later, for the first time in history, the House of Representatives charged a U.S. presi-
dent with “incitement of insurrection” (Fandos, 2021).
Social scientists, policymakers, and commentators have long assumed that Western
democracies enjoy relative stability because of deep commitments to a culture of dem-
ocratic governance. But those commitments are quickly fading in almost every devel-
oped and developing democracy around the globe. The number of people worldwide
who strongly support democratic institutions is diminishing fast and, most alarming,
these declines are sharpest among young people. In 1995, just one in 16 Americans
44 Teachers College Record 124(3)
agreed with the idea that it would be “good” or “very good” for the military to run the
country rather than elected democratic officials. Today, one in 5 agree (World Values
Survey, 2020). Nearly a quarter of U.S. youth ages 16 to 24 believe that democracy is
a “bad” or “very bad” way of governing. Self-serving political leaders, exploiting this
declining public support for democracy, now openly express disdain for hallmarks of
democratic society, including the free press, civil liberties, and the courts. They stoke
resentment against immigrants, people of color, and people with differing political
views that, in turn, leads to increased alienation and radicalization among those already
on the margins. Coupled with news media outlets—an alarming number of which not
only polarize but also now fictionalize the news—these trends make possible the once-
unthinkable attack on American democracy as described (Bright Line Watch, 2020;
Dasandi, 2018; Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018; Runciman, 2018).
These challenges to social cohesion and democratic governance highlight the need
for young people to be exposed early on and throughout their educational pathways to
the knowledge, skills, and dispositions consistent with democratic life. The good news
is that schools are well-positioned for this task. Across more than a century of school
reform, and through pendulum swings from a focus on equity to a preoccupation with
excellence and back again, the idea that young people must learn to be good citizens
has always been central to the ideals of public education. But in the same period that
support for democracy has declined, schools and teacher education programs have
been pressured by “accountability” measures and economic austerity to focus on math
and literacy achievement to the exclusion of nearly every other educational goal.
This essay examines the potential of teacher education as a lever for change. How
might teacher educators ensure that teachers are prepared to foster education that will
sustain and strengthen democratic norms? What would teacher preparation that seeks
to strengthen support for democratic institutions look like? If schools have an essential
role to play in preparing students for informed engagement in civic and political life,
how can we best prepare teachers to advance those goals? Using recent empirical
research on declining support for democratic values and on teachers’ civic engagement
as well as conceptual work on democratic education goals, I suggest that teacher edu-
cation must move from reactive technocratic concerns for accountability and standard-
ization to broader civic and civil commitments to the foundations of democratic
community, pluralism, and relationship.
Democratic Deconsolidation
Political scientists use the term democratic consolidation to describe a largely irre-
versible process by which democracy becomes “the only game in town” and where
“none of the major political actors consider that there is any alternative to democratic
processes to gain power” (Linz, 1990, p. 156). For at least the last half century, for
relatively wealthy and stable democracies, that assumption seemed about right to
scholars and commentators alike. But that irreversibility is now in question, raising the
concern that a process of democratic deconsolidation may be taking place in which
Westheimer 45
previously stable democracies unravel (Foa & Mounk, 2017; Inglehart, 2016; Levitsky
& Ziblatt, 2018).
In a widely circulated 2017 report, the Pew Research Center raised considerable
alarm among those who have generally assumed that Western democracies enjoy rela-
tive stability amid an entrenched culture of democratic governance (Wike et al., 2017).
Although the report was titled “Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct
Democracy,” commentators, civic educators, and political scientists highlighted a
number of findings that challenged the rosier title. In the United States, for example,
22% of respondents thought that it would be a “good” or “very good” idea to have a
political system in which a leader had power unchecked by legislators or courts. Close
to one in three respondents who identified as Republican and almost half of U.S. mil-
lennials thought the same (globally, that figure was 26%).
In another study released a few months earlier, Harvard lecturer Yascha Mounk and
Australian political scientist Roberto Stefan Foa examined longitudinal data from the
World Values Survey and found considerable cause for concern. Between 1995 and
2014, the number of citizens who reported a preference for a government leader who
was “strong” and who did not need to bother with elections increased in almost every
developed and developing democracy and, again, the growth was greatest among
youth and young adults (Foa & Mounk, 2016). Similarly, the more recent 2017–2020
World Values Survey (WVS) reports that more than two-fifths (42%) of America mil-
lennials (currently ages 25–39) would like to live under a political system in which a
“strong leader” could make decisions without being bothered with elections or inter-
ference from congress (World Values Survey, 2020). I mentioned earlier that one in
five Americans would prefer that the military rather than elected government officials
run the country, but for millennials, that number increases to nearly one in three.1
Democracy, it seems, is not self-winding.
The 2016 election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the Brexit
movement votes in the United Kingdom served to deepen fears that populist national-
ism—the rallying in the service of right wing nationalism of “the people” against the
common enemies of both “foreigners” and a constructed “elite”—was gaining ground in
the United States and globally. Although the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S.
Capitol was perhaps the most striking example of a growing willingness to discard dem-
ocratic commitments to pluralism, the signposts came earlier. The 2016–2020 Trump
presidency was replete with openly expressed disdain for hallmarks of democratic soci-
ety, including racial equality, the free press, civil liberties, and the courts. The executive
and much of the legislative branches of government embraced discourse, policy, and
legislation that sought to severely restrict both immigration (Vidal, 2018) and global
trade (Lester & Manak, 2018) while fostering resentment against ethnic “others” among
supporters (Bonikowski, 2017). White supremacists, always present in the American
social and political landscape, became newly emboldened by a President and his
Republican sycophants who shamelessly stoked racial divisions to their advantage. (It
was not accidental that many of those who rallied outside the Capitol and those who used
violent means to gain entry and threaten legislators carried with them confederate flags.)
46 Teachers College Record 124(3)
The stunning mainstreaming of QAnon conspiracy theories further illustrates the
power of antidemocratic rhetoric and policy to drive individuals and groups to with-
draw from mainstream civil representation altogether, preferring subgroup identity
over attachments to the broader civil society—what James Banks (2017) aptly calls
“failed citizenship.” This climate enables racist extremist movements and facts-be-
damned conspiracy theories to metastasize.
Moreover, the legitimation of racism and xenophobia and a global revival of jingo-
istic nationalism fuels increases in incidents of hate speech, antagonism, and assaults
on both newly arrived immigrants and native-born visible minorities in not only the
United States but also a growing number of Western democracies (United Nations,
2016). In the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) documented a
precipitous rise in hatred, fear, and alienation among students (Costello, 2016).
Teachers similarly reported a dramatic increase in hate speech (Au, 2017; Rogers
et al., 2017, 2019; Vara-Orta, 2018). Social media echo chambers further entrench
antidemocratic tendencies and pollute genuine social and political discourse (Kahne &
Bowyer, 2017; Middaugh, 2019). Yoichi Funabashi, chairman of the Rebuild Japan
Initiative, which is dedicated to strengthening democratic ideals in Japan, summarizes
the risks of these divisions succinctly:
If society becomes characterized by intolerant divisions, in which people immediately
select their allies and dismiss others as foes based on such criteria as race, ethnicity,
religion or lifestyle, then democracy’s foundational principles, rooted in careful
deliberation and compromise, will be rendered inoperable. (Funabashi, 2017)
Ultimately, as witnessed in the murder of 32-year-old Heather Heyer during a neo-
Nazi rally in Charlottesville, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that killed 11 people, the
attempted pipe bomb murders of prominent political and philanthropic leaders throughout
the United States, the deaths of (at least) five people in the Capitol attack, and hundreds
of other incidents, the result is a threat not only to democracy but also to life and liberty.
(See Hasan, 2018 for a disturbing review of deaths directly linked to political hate speech.)
Against this sociopolitical backdrop, we might expect that education policymakers
across the globe (including those responsible for teacher education) would respond
with urgency and clarity of purpose. Schools, after all, are the one institution that com-
mands the attention of nearly the entire population for at least 10 formative years. But
if shoring up democracy requires teaching young people democratic habits of partici-
pation, critical thinking, dialogue, and understanding, then those foundations of demo-
cratic life are at odds with education policy.
Schooling in the Age of Standards and Accountability
The challenges to social cohesion and democratic community just described have
prompted commentators and educators to highlight the need for schools to teach desir-
able norms of civic, civil, and political engagement (and these calls have only been
Westheimer 47
amplified in the days following the early 2021 Capitol attack). Yet, over the last two
decades, the goals of K–12 education have shifted steadily away from preparing active
and engaged public citizens and toward more narrow goals of career preparation and
individual economic gain (Giroux, 2017; Hursh, 2007, 2016; Westheimer, 2015).
Pressures from policymakers, business groups, philanthropic foundations, and par-
ents, and a broad cultural shift in educational priorities have resulted in U.S. public
schools being seen primarily as conduits for individual success; increasingly, lessons
aimed at exploring democratic responsibilities have been crowded out (Kempf, 2016;
Rogers et al., 2020; Stitzlein, 2017). Much of current education reform limits the kinds
of teaching and learning that can develop the attitudes, skills, knowledge, and habits
necessary for a democratic society to flourish (Berliner, 2011; Kohn, 2004).
A perusal of school mission statements could be momentarily reassuring. Almost
all boast broad goals related to critical thinking, citizenship, multicultural understand-
ing, freedom of ideas, and moral character. Yet mission statements and school policy
and practice do not always align (Bebell et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2020; Schafft &
Biddle, 2013; Stemler & Bebell, 2012). In most school districts, ever more narrow
curriculum frameworks emphasize preparing students for standardized assessments in
math and literacy at the same time that they shortchange the social studies, history, and
even the most basic forms of citizenship education (Au, 2007; Koretz, 2017). Finnish
educator Pasi Sahlberg calls the kind of school reform that elevates testing and stan-
dardization above all other educational considerations GERM (for Global Education
Reform Movement). He describes GERM as follows:
It is like an epidemic that spreads and infects education systems through a virus. It travels
with pundits, media and politicians. Education systems borrow policies from others and
get infected. As a consequence, schools get ill, teachers don’t feel well, and kids learn
less. (Sahlberg, 2012)
Not only do kids learn less but also what they learn tends to follow prescriptive
formulas that match the standardized tests. In the process, more complex and difficult-
to-measure learning outcomes get left behind. These include creativity and emotional
and social development as well as the kinds of thinking skills associated with robust
civic engagement. Teachers’ ability to teach critical thinking and students’ ability to
think and act critically are, in turn, diminished.
In the two decades since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act ushered in an era
of standards, accountability, and assessment, schools have become obsessively focused
on technocratic solutions to both real and imagined educational problems. The 2009
Race to the Top initiative continued the emphasis on math and literacy and on stan-
dardized assessments in those subjects as the only legitimate lever for school improve-
ment. The arguably more well-intentioned but still problematic Common Core State
Standards Initiative, although aimed at increasing critical thinking, nonetheless con-
tinued the myopic focus on testing (Karp, 2013/2014). Developed in 2009 and 2010
under the auspices of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief
48 Teachers College Record 124(3)
State School Officers, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been adopted
by 45 states and the District of Columbia. (The widespread participation is due, in part,
to the earlier stipulation that to be eligible for Race to the Top funding, states had to
first adopt the new standards.) Although many educators agree that the content of the
newer standards has more depth than previous attempts at standardized rubrics, the
uniformity they demand continues to inhibit the possibilities of using localized knowl-
edge and experiences (Blankstein & Noguera, 2016; Meier & Gasoi, 2018). Localized
knowledge and experiences, in turn, are important ingredients in developing commit-
ments to democratic principles (see, e.g., Schultz, 2017).
Moreover, these new standards, much like the old ones, are inextricably linked to
the larger political project to remake (some would say destroy) public education—a
package of reforms that include high stakes testing, teacher evaluations, “value-added”
measures, and privatization. As David Greene argued in U.S. News and World Report
(Greene, 2014), we must always evaluate standards in the framework of a larger policy
context that stifles teachers. Uniformity, Greene notes, means that teachers’ practical
wisdom and spontaneity are devalued. Curricular approaches that spoon-feed students
to succeed on narrow academic tests teach students that broader critical thinking is
optional (Brezicha & Mitra, 2019). But what might be good schooling for increasing
scores on standardized tests (this, too, is questionable) is not necessarily good school-
ing for building and sustaining democratic communities. The hidden curriculum of too
many post-NCLB classrooms is how to please authority and pass the tests, not how to
engage in reasoned dialogue, recognize assumptions and evidence, distinguish fact
from fiction on the internet, or develop convictions and stand up for them.
The policies and practices of the standards and accountability movements, more-
over, are themselves applied undemocratically. As Domingo Morel demonstrates in
great detail in his 2018 book, Takeover: Race, Education, and American Democracy,
state takeovers of schools and school boards (almost always a result of poor results
on standardized tests) occur disproportionally in communities of color and result not
only in the same or worse educational outcomes for students but also in the system-
atic dismantling of democratic political engagement in those communities. Rather
than empowering future generations, he argues, a focus on accountability and stan-
dards disempowers the current one. Similarly, Noliwe Rooks (2017) documents the
damage these reform movements bring to equality of educational and political
opportunity by funneling millions of dollars away from Black and Hispanic com-
munities and into the pockets of almost exclusively White entrepreneur “robber bar-
ons.”2 Philanthropy, too, ostensibly directed at improving educational outcomes in
underserved schools, is just as likely to end up reinforcing rather than ameliorating
inequality and weakening rather than strengthening democratic participation and
engagement (Lipman, 2015).3
It is worth noting that, although the overall reform context may limit in-depth, criti-
cal analysis and exposure to democratic habits of heart and mind, a significant number
of teachers continue to teach those skills. As the important work of Kahne and
Middaugh (2008) has demonstrated, however, it tends to be higher-achieving students,
Westheimer 49
often from wealthier neighborhoods, who are receiving a disproportionate share of the
kinds of civic education opportunities that sharpen students’ thinking about issues of
public debate and concern. This demographic divide or “civic opportunity gap” results
in unequal distribution of opportunities to practice democratic engagement (see also,
Kahne et al., 2013; Rubin et al., 2016). Because economic inequality (and inequitable
school funding) has also increased dramatically over the past two decades, these
effects are likely to get worse before they get better (Barshay, 2015; Saez, 2016).
The increasingly narrow curriculum goals, accountability measures, and standard-
ized testing regimens have reduced too many classroom lessons to the cold, stark
pursuit of information and facts without context and social meaning. Like most educa-
tors, I have nothing against facts. However, democratic societies require more than
citizens who are fact-full. They require citizens who can think and act in ethically
thoughtful ways. A well-functioning democracy benefits from classroom practices that
teach students to recognize ambiguity and conflict in factual content, to see human
conditions and aspirations as complex and contested, and to embrace debate and delib-
eration as a cornerstone of democratic societies.
Teacher Education in the AGE of Standards and
Accountability
Teacher education has followed a similar trajectory. The last two decades of reform in
teacher education have elevated outcomes-driven accountability measures at the same
time that they have discouraged an emphasis on the civic role of education in demo-
cratic societies. Much as K–12 reforms became dominated by value-added measures
of success and failure, graduate schools of education allowed the same to happen in
their teacher education programs—often over vociferous objection from the profes-
sors within. Although universities often operate with substantial independence for
what and how they teach, a shift in control of teacher preparation from local to state
and federal agencies ushered in a flood of regulatory provisions (Cochran-Smith et al.,
2017, 2018a; Sleeter & Banks, 2007; Zeichner, 2018).
In the United States, a messy, bureaucratic patchwork of accrediting and teacher perfor-
mance assessment systems have put further pressure on teacher education programs to
adhere to an accountability-driven curriculum that eliminates opportunities for engaging
civic and political issues and practices. The Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP), the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), and the Educative
Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) are three examples. This alphabet soup of orga-
nizational oversight, usually hailed as a way to professionalize teaching, more often has the
opposite effect, leaving teachers vulnerable to the bureaucratic and political whims of
those outside the field of education. As Cochran-Smith and colleagues (2018a) argue, the
variety of organizations and policies that end up driving teacher education policies may
differ in approach, ideology, and motivation, but share a “dominant accountability para-
digm . . . that has generally reified test scores as the primary measure of students’ learning
and has had a subtractive impact on the work of teacher education” (p. 13).
50 Teachers College Record 124(3)
One such negative outcome is the tendency for the teacher education curriculum to
focus exhaustively on technocratic competence at the expense of the “big ideas” that
are essential for democratic renewal (Hooley, 2018; Noddings, 2013). In teacher edu-
cation, as in schools, basic knowledge and skills are important but insufficient.
Prospective teachers can learn to teach mathematics and science, history and the arts,
social sciences and literature. But for teacher education to be in the service of a robust
democracy, teachers need to connect knowledge and skills to matters of social con-
cern—that is to their roles and their students’ roles as members of a democratic soci-
ety. This requires curricular experiences that defy standardization and regimentation
of practice. It requires tying classroom learning to civic engagement and “the social
spirit” (Dewey, 1972, p. 225).
Another problem with accountability mandates for teacher education is the accom-
panying standardization and homogeneity that preclude local engagement. It is not
possible to teach democratic forms of thinking without providing a local environment
to think about. For that reason, among many others, accountability standards are dif-
ficult to reconcile with issues that matter to students and teachers in a particular time
and place. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the challenges teacher education
programs face in preparing a primarily White teaching force for work in urban schools
with racially diverse student populations. Accountability and accreditation mandates
narrow the possibilities for teacher education programs to focus on local needs and
concerns related to diversity and equity (see Milner, 2010). This is an especially egre-
gious affront to teacher education in the service of robust democracy, which requires
inclusive participation and diverse experiences in community life.
On a practical level, myopic accountability measures in teacher education force a
preoccupation with technocratic competence and diminish the likelihood that prospec-
tive teachers will gain experiences that link disciplinary knowledge to the kinds of
social meaning that democracy requires. This may be especially true if those entering
teacher education programs are already wanting in positive experiences in and com-
mitments to democratic community life. After all, when young adults tally what an
allegedly democratic system of governance has delivered for them, their commitments
to the system that previous generations took for granted may be shaky. Consider that
although many students now entering teacher education were coming of age as observ-
ers of the political scene, democratic governance did not seem to be working very
well: In 2013 and 2018, an increasingly partisan and dysfunctional Congress, unable
to compromise or pass legislation, led to government shutdowns of 16 and 35 days,
respectively. Three years after the 2018 Stoneman Douglas school shootings—when
97% of Americans supported universal background checks for gun purchasers
(Quinnipiac University, 2018)—the federal government still does not require it.
Climate change threatens to make the planet virtually uninhabitable, and government
action to mitigate the threat has been mostly dysfunctional. And most notably, from
2016 to 2020, the world’s supposed model democracy was led by a President with
little respect for the principles and practices of democracy. The project of education
for robust democracy, then, might need to begin explicitly with teacher education.
Westheimer 51
In his classic 1971 text, The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change,
Seymour Sarason wrote that teachers cannot possibly create and sustain productive
learning environments for students when no such conditions exist for teachers. He was
suggesting that schools must be places of intellectual growth for teachers as well as stu-
dents. Similarly, if teachers are to create learning environments that strengthen demo-
cratic dispositions for students, then teachers should be afforded opportunities in teacher
education for experiences that bring those dispositions to life. In the next section, I sum-
marize findings from a study I conducted with John Rogers (UCLA) and The Inequality
Project4 that provides additional evidence that such an approach could be fruitful.
The Need for Experience in Civic and Political
Engagement
There is considerable consensus among political philosophers—from Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and John Rawls to Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Sheldon Wolin—about
the ties between robust democracy and issues of equity and justice. Recently, economic
inequality, in particular, has garnered a great deal of attention from scholars of multiple
disciplines concerned about the corrosive effects of economic inequality on democracy
(e.g., Bartels, 2018; Gilens, 2014; Schlozman et al., 2020; Stiglitz, 2015; Wilkinson &
Pickett, 2010). At the same time, research on education practices that serve as prerequi-
sites for robust democratic engagement highlight the importance of classroom discus-
sions around issues of contemporary concern (e.g., Banks, 2008; Hess & McAvoy, 2014;
Journell, 2017; Noddings, 2013; Parker, 2003, 2014). If young people’s civic and political
engagement requires experiences investigating and exploring contemporary issues in
school, how might teacher education programs prepare teachers to provide those
experiences?
In spring and summer of 2015, John Rogers (UCLA) and I, along with an excep-
tional team of graduate students from UCLA and the University of Ottawa, con-
ducted a large-scale teacher survey and follow-up set of interviews that examined
how often U.S. and Canadian high school social studies, math, and English teachers
address issues of economic inequality, what they teach about this topic, and why.
The survey included items on teachers’ political ideology and civic and political
engagement as well as their classroom practice. The 2,300 public school teachers
who participated in the survey formed two statistically representative samples of
public schools (one in the United States and one in Canada) in terms of student
demographics and geographic location. (See Rogers & Westheimer, 2017 for a
detailed methodology.) We also surveyed an additional 450 teachers from elite inde-
pendent schools. Two waves of follow-up interviews with 150 teachers followed in
the summers of 2015 and 2016. Although the study focused on the issue of economic
inequality (and as stated previously, a growing body of work highlights the impact
of inequality on diminishing democratic norms and institutions), our data indicated
that this topic tended to dovetail strongly with other socioeconomic and political
issues as well.
52 Teachers College Record 124(3)
We found, to our surprise, that many teachers across all three subjects report that they
address issues of economic inequality quite frequently. For example, almost half of
social studies teachers report addressing issues of economic inequality at least once a
week and talking with students about the distribution of income or wealth. A similar
proportion of English teachers reported the same. And nearly one in three math teachers
reported discussing economic inequality in class at least once a month (Raygoza, 2017).
Table 1 presents a logistic regression model designed to predict factors associated
with teaching about economic inequality at least once a week. The model includes
teachers’ self-reported political ideology (liberal, moderate, conservative) as well as a
composite variable of civic and political engagement based on teachers’ responses to
questions about how frequently they follow the news, talk about politics with friends
and family, and participate in organizations that seek to make a difference in their
community or broader society. It also includes control variables associated with
teacher background (race, gender, socioeconomic status [SES]), the class teachers
reported on (subject matter and ability level), school demographics (school size, race,
student SES), and community characteristics (region and the political leaning of the
local congressional district).
Our most striking finding with regard to teaching and learning about economic
inequality is that a teacher’s political ideology does not predict the frequency with which
he or she teaches lessons about inequality. Although liberal teachers are more likely than
conservative teachers to report that economic inequality is a topic of particular concern
to them personally, both liberal and conservative teachers more or less equally believe it
should be part of the curriculum and classroom discussion. However, the degree to
which a teacher is politically engaged outside of the classroom is a strong predictor of
how often they engage their students with issues such as economic inequality. Our study
suggests that politically and civically engaged teachers are more likely to engage stu-
dents more frequently and in more sophisticated ways with the economic, political, and
social implications of increasing inequality in both American society and the world. In
turn, these teachers are more likely to ask students to imagine solutions—offering mean-
ing, relevance, and agency to lessons in math, literature, and social studies.
Our measures of civic and political engagement included not only deep involve-
ment such as working for community organizations or political campaigns but also
following the news and having political discussions with friends, so the implications
for teacher education are promising. Teacher education programs should consider
ways to encourage new and experienced teachers to follow the news, engage in civil5
discourse with one another about topics of public concern, and participate in civic and
political life. Moreover, teacher educators could work toward teaching the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions associated with political and civic engagement. Finally, teacher
education programs could put social issues at the core of the curriculum, regardless of
subject areas. For example, UCLA’s Center X already aims to prepare teachers to
identify and challenge inequities in both schools and the broader society (Cochran-
Smith et al., 2018a; UCLA Center X, 2020). Other programs seek to engage teacher
education students in current debates about democracy itself, exploring the
Westheimer 53
educational implications of different pedagogies and different school organizations
and commitments (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018b; Edling & Simmie, 2020; Westheimer,
2015). There are many other approaches that enable teacher educators to provide for
prospective teachers the kind of rich engagement with democratic community life we
hope they will later create for their students.
Students in democratic societies need practice in entertaining multiple viewpoints
on issues that affect their lives and the lives of others (Bruen et al., 2016; Campbell,
2008; Lin et al., 2015; Sleeter, 2017). Yet choosing to engage controversy in the class-
room can cause friction for teachers—with students, parents, and administrators.
Teachers have been disciplined, suspended, and fired for engaging students in discus-
sions on controversial issues (Journell, 2017; Stitzlein, 2013; Westheimer, 2007). Even
when teachers avoid expressing their own political views, encouraging discussion,
Table 1. Logit Model—Regularly Teaching About Political Issues (Economic Inequality).
Category Odds ratio Standard error p > [z]
Male teacher 1.163 0.149 .238
White teacher 1.033 0.206 .869
Low SES teacher 1.071 0.151 .813
Liberal teacher 1.064 0.159 .677
Conservative teacher 0.839 0.139 .291
Low civic engagement 0.577** 0.110 .004
High civic engagement 1.324* 0.183 .042
Economics class 1.334 0.235 .101
Low ability class 1.070 0.305 .813
High ability class 1.619** 0.225 .001
Low % free/reduced lunch 1.332 0.203 .060
High % free/reduced lunch 1.039 0.183 .828
Small school size 0.884 0.174 .532
Medium school size 1.283 0.189 .090
Low % White students 1.626* 0.318 .013
High % White students 0.879 0.153 .457
Low % Obama vote 1.019 0.190 .918
High % Obama vote 0.753 0.137 .120
Region 1 1.280 0.289 .273
Region 2 1.094 0.205 .630
Region 4 0.948 0.162 .753
Intercept 0.485 0.149 .018
N1,119
Log-likelihood −736.12
Likelihood ratio 58.48
R20.038
*p < .05. **p < .01.
54 Teachers College Record 124(3)
controversy, and action in the classroom can be daunting (see also Gibbs, 2019).
Students may express views that make classmates uncomfortable, they may engage in
political acts that concern their parents, or they may choose to challenge their own
school’s policies. Democracy can be messy.
The idea that schools should be “above politics” has historically served to curb politi-
cal discussions in classrooms. Politics, in this view, is something to be avoided. But a
more noble conception of politics is possible. Politics is the way in which people with
different values from a variety of backgrounds and interests can come together to negoti-
ate their differences and clarify places where values conflict. Politics is, as Bernard Crick
observed in his classic work, In Defense of Politics, “a great and civilizing activity”
(Crick, 1962/2005, p. 9). To accept the importance of politics is to strive for a plurality of
views rather than a unified perspective. This kind of engagement in teacher education
programs described here would serve to mitigate the fear that often accompanies teachers’
efforts to engage their students in contentious topics. In this reclaimed vision, being politi-
cal means embracing the kind of controversy and ideological sparring that is the engine of
progress. It is also the kind of teaching that restores democratic purpose to education.
Conclusion
Although most social scientists and the public have viewed American democracy as rela-
tively stable, if imperfect (at least up until January 6, 2021), this view is by no means the
historical norm. For most of human history, democracy has been seen as inherently fragile
and susceptible to collapse. Saving democracy is, to state the obvious, a multidimensional
undertaking, only part of which can be realized in schools. But when some of the world’s
oldest democracies are threatened by vast economic inequality, fear, xenophobia, attacks
on a free press, and a potentially dangerous form of populism, teaching, and learning that
helps young people understand and respond to these phenomena can help. It is incumbent
on teachers and school leaders as well as policymakers and teacher educators to reassert
a role in fostering schools that reclaims the importance of democratic values and the com-
mon good and that strengthens the bonds between us.
Although some policymakers have been myopically preoccupied with standardized
testing in only two subject areas (math and literacy), and others have passed laws
effectively outlawing critical thinking (see Strauss, 2012; Westheimer, 2015), many
educators have created their own lessons in civic engagement. In every school district,
there are examples of individual teachers and schools that work creatively and dili-
gently to engage their students in thinking about the ways their education connects to
broader democratic goals. Curriculum that teaches critical analysis of multiple per-
spectives on a huge variety of topics is available from a variety of organizations (e.g.,
Rethinking Schools, Teaching for Change, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s
Teaching for Tolerance, and the Zinn Education Project), and a significant number of
teachers are using these resources with their students.
But for these experiences to become commonplace, teacher education programs
must provide these kinds of opportunities for teachers. All teachers, then, and not just
Westheimer 55
civics or social studies teachers, should experience teacher education consistent with
democratic community life. In order for this to happen, graduate schools of education
will have to free themselves from the accountability, technocratic competence frame-
work, or, as Cochran-Smith and her colleagues (2018a) argue, redefine that framework.
But understanding the obstacles young adults face as they enter the profession is also
important. Prospective teachers need experiences in democratic community with all its
messiness and contention and opportunities for civic and political engagement that
focus on imagining a better world. Teacher education that fosters the kind of engage-
ment a well-functioning democracy requires can help to ensure that teachers gain the
knowledge, capacities, and dispositions associated with a robust democratic life.
I am suggesting that, yes, at least part of the solution to our democratic ills lies with
teacher educators. Teacher education alone cannot save democracy, but it can prepare
teachers to bring meaning and complexity to classroom life and to teach students that
they have choices about how we should live and that those choices are the building
blocks of democratic engagement.
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 disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: The author thanks the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada and the University of Ottawa Research Chairs Program for support.
Notes
1. By comparison, Americans’ beliefs about the importance of and preference for democratic
rather than autocratic governance are about on par with the Chinese (World Values Survey,
2020). When it comes to preferring that the military rather than elected government offi-
cials run the country, American millennials are on par with their peers living in Zimbabwe
where, as Freedom House (2020) reports, “endemic corruption, weak rule of law, and poor
protections for workers” are the norm. By contrast, fewer than 4% of Germans believe that
a democratic system of government is “fairly bad” or “very bad” and only 1% of Germans
would prefer military rule.
2. At stake are enormous quantities of public funds redirected from local, publicly account-
able school boards to private, often for-profit, charter schools, and/or management compa-
nies. (See also Lafer et al., 2021 for a cogent exposé of the scandals and lack of results that
plague efforts in California to use state funds to pay for online charter school education.)
3. A similar process takes place in public and philanthropic funding in health care. Redirecting
these funds from publicly accountable civic structures to privately determined goals and
organizations can result in perpetuating rather than eliminating extant inequalities (Leckie,
2021; Waitzkin, 2018).
4. The Inequality Project (http://theinequalityproject.com) is composed of a team of research-
ers from the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Ottawa (Ontario)
56 Teachers College Record 124(3)
studying what high schools in the United States and Canada teach students about economic
inequality. The study described here was conducted by John Rogers and Joel Westheimer
with Anthony Berryman, Anton Birioukov, Matt Brillinger, Claudia Diera, Michael
Ishimoto, Mary Raygoza, Agata Soroko, and Jung-eun Ellie Yun.
5. For an excellent discussion of bottom-up versus top-down civility, see Rogers (2020).
References
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis.
Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
Au, W. (2017). When multicultural education is not enough. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(3),
147–150.
Banks, J. A. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age.
Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139.
Banks, J. A. (2017). Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational
Researcher, 46(7), 366–377.
Barshay, J. (2015). The gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade. The
Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-
grew-44-percent-over-a-decade
Bartels, L. M. (2018). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age (2nd
ed.). Princeton University Press.
Bebell, D., Stemler, S. E., & Heimler, D. (2020). An analysis of high school mission statements
in Massachusetts from 2001 to 2019. Journal of Education and Social Policy, 7(2), 1–13.
Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing
and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302.
Blankstein, A. M., & Noguera, P. (2016). Excellence through equity: Five principles of coura-
geous leadership to guide achievement for every student. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Bonikowski, B. (2017). Ethno-nationalist populism and the mobilization of collective resent-
ment. British Journal of Sociology, 68(S1), S182–S213.
Brezicha, K., & Mitra, D. (2019). Should we be testing civics? Examining the implications of
the Civic Education Initiative. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(1), 63–77.
Bright Line Watch. (2020). A democratic stress test: The 2020 election and its aftermath. http://
brightlinewatch.org/american-democracy-on-the-eve-of-the-2020-election/a-democratic-
stress-test-the-2020-election-and-its-aftermathbright-line-watch-november-2020-survey/
Bruen, J., Crosbie, V., Kelly, N., Loftus, M., Maillot, A., McGillicuddy, A., & Péchenart, J.
(2016). Teaching controversial topics in the humanities and social sciences in Ireland: Using
structured academic controversy to develop multi-perspectivity in the learner. Journal of
Social Science Education, 15(3), 18–25.
Campbell, D. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom fosters political engage-
ment among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30(4), 437–454.
Cochran-Smith, M., Baker, M., Burton, S., Chang, W. C., Cummings Carney, M., Fernández, M.
B., Keefe, E. S., Miller, A. F., & Sánchez, J. G. (2017). The accountability era in US teacher
education: Looking back, looking forward. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5),
572–588.
Cochran-Smith, M., Carney, M. C., Keefe, E. S., Burton, S., Chang, W. C., Fernandez, M. B.,
Miller, A. F., Sánchez, J. G., & Baker, M. (2018a). Reclaiming accountability in teacher
education. Teachers College Press.
Westheimer 57
Cochran-Smith, M., Stringer-Keefe, E., & Cummings Carney, M. (2018b). Teacher educators as
reformers: Competing agendas. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(5), 572–590.
Costello, M. (2016). The Trump effect: The impact of the presidential campaign on our nation’s
schools. Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/splc_
the_trump_effect.pdf
Crick, B. (1962/2005). In defence of politics. A&C Black.
Dasandi, N. (2018). Is democracy failing? A primer for the 21st century. Thames & Hudson.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1972). Plan of organization of the university primary school. In J. Boydston (Ed.),
Early works of John Dewey 1882–1898 (Vol. 5, pp. 223–243). Southern Illinois University
Press.
Edling, S., & Simmie, G. M. (2020). Democracy and teacher education: Dilemmas, challenges
and possibilities. Routledge.
Fandos, N. (2021, January 13). Trump impeached for inciting insurrection. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/us/politics/trump-impeached.html
Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect.
Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5–17.
Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1),
5–16.
Freedom House. (2020). Freedom in the world 2020. https://freedomhouse.org/country/zimba-
bwe/freedom-world/2020
Funabashi, Y. (2017, January 17). Trump’s populist nationalism. The Japan Times. http://www.
japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/01/17/commentary/japan-commentary/trumps-populist-
nationalism/
Gibbs, B. (2019). Patriotism, pressure and place: Civic agency in base country. Peabody Journal
of Education, 94(1), 97–113.
Gilens, M. (2014). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in
America. Princeton University Press.
Giroux, H. (2017). Democratic education under siege in a neoliberal society. In C. Wright-
Maley & T. Davis (Eds.), Teaching for democracy in an age of economic disparity (pp.
13–24). Routledge.
Greene, D. (2014, March 17). The long death of creative teaching: Common Core standards
are part of a bigger movement towards stifling teachers. U.S. News & World Report. http://
www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/17/how-common-core-standards-kill-creative-
teaching/
Hasan, M. (2018). Here is a list of far-right attackers Trump inspired: Cesar Sayoc wasn’t the
first—and won’t be the last. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/here-is-a-list-
of-far-right-attackers-trump-inspired-cesar-sayoc-wasnt-the-first-and-wont-be-the-last/
Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2014). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic
education. Routledge.
Hooley, N. (2018). Radical schooling for democracy: Engaging philosophy of education for the
public good. Routledge.
Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies.
American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.
Hursh, D. (2016). The end of public schools: The corporate reform agenda to privatize educa-
tion. Taylor & Francis.
58 Teachers College Record 124(3)
Inglehart, R. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation: How much should we worry? Journal of
Democracy, 27(3), 18–23.
Journell, W. (2017). Teaching politics in secondary education: Engaging with contentious
issues. State University of New York Press.
Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017). Educating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the
challenges of motivated reasoning and misinformation. American Educational Research
Journal, 54(1), 3–34.
Kahne, J., Crow, D., & Lee, N. J. (2013). Different pedagogy, different politics: High school
learning opportunities and youth political engagement. Political Psychology, 34(3), 419–
441.
Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high
school (Working Paper #59). Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning
(CIRCLE).
Karp, S. (2013/2014). The problems with the common core. Rethinking Schools, 28(2). http://
www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-problems-with-the-common-core/
Kempf, A. (2016). The pedagogy of standardized testing: The radical impacts of educational
standardization in the US and Canada. Palgrave.
Kohn, A. (2004). What does it mean to be well educated? Beacon Press.
Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. University of
Chicago Press.
Lafer, G., Crawford, C., Petrucci, L., & Smith, J. (2021). Costly failure: California is overpay-
ing for online charter schools that are failing students. In the Public Interest.
Leckie, M. (2021). The role of philanthropy in global health [Lecture]. McMaster University,
Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lester, S., & Manak, I. (2018). The rise of populist nationalism and the renegotiation of NAFTA.
Journal of International Law, 21(1), 151–169.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.
Lin, A. R., Lawrence, J. F., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Teaching urban youth about controver-
sial issues: Pathways to becoming active and informed citizens. Citizenship, Social and
Economics Education, 14(2), 103–119.
Linz, J. (1990, July 3). Transitions to democracy. Washington Quarterly, 13(3), 143–164.
Lipman, P. (2015). Capitalizing on crisis: Venture philanthropy’s colonial project to remake
urban education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 241–258.
Meier, D., & Gasoi, E. (2018). These schools belong to you and me: Why we can't afford to
abandon our public schools. Beacon Press.
Middaugh, E. (2019). More than just facts: Promoting civic information literacy in the era of
outrage. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(1), 17–31.
Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there. Harvard Education Press.
Morel, D. (2018). Takeover: Race, education, and American democracy. Oxford University
Press.
Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the 21st century. Teachers College Press.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. Teachers College
Press.
Parker, W. C. (2014). Citizenship education in the United States: Regime type, foundational
questions, and classroom practice. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez. (Eds.), Handbook of moral
and character education (2nd ed., pp. 347–367). Routledge.
Westheimer 59
Quinnipiac University. (2018). Quinnipiac University poll: U.S. support for gun control tops
2-1, highest ever. https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us02202018_ugbw51.pdf
Raygoza, M. C. (2017). Teaching about economic inequality in United States secondary
mathematics classrooms [Dissertation]. University of California. https://digitalcommons.
stmarys-ca.edu/school-education-faculty-works/1792/
Rogers, J. (2020). Educating for democracy in contentious times [Paper presentation]. Education:
The Global Compact, Vatican City.
Rogers, J., Franke, M., Yun, J. E., Ishimoto, M., Diera, C., Geller, R., Berryman, A., & Brenes,
T. (2017). Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in
America’s high schools. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. https://
idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/teaching-and-learning-in-age-of-trump
Rogers, J., Hodgin, E., Kahne, J., Cooper Geller, R., Kwako, A., Alkam, S., & Bingener, C.
(2020). Reclaiming the democratic purpose of California’s public schools [Research
report]. Leveraging Equity & Access in Democratic Education Initiative at UCLA and
UC Riverside. https://centerx.gseis.ucla.edu/leade/reclaiming-the-democratic-purpose-of-
californias-public-schools/
Rogers, J., Ishimoto, M., Kwako, A., Berryman, A., & Diera, C. (2019). School and society in
the age of Trump. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. https://idea.
gseis.ucla.edu/publications/school-and-society-in-age-of-trump/
Rogers, J., & Westheimer, J. (2017). Teaching about economic inequality in a diverse democ-
racy: Politics, ideology, and difference. PS: Political Science and Politics, 50(4), 1049–
1055.
Rooks, N. (2017). Cutting school: The segrenomics of American education. New Press.
Rubin, B., El Haj, T. R., Graham, E., & Clay, K. (2016). Confronting the urban civic opportu-
nity gap: Integrating youth participatory action research into teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 67(5), 424–436.
Rucker, P. (2021, January 6). Trump’s presidency finishes in “American carnage” as rioters
storm the Capitol. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
rioters-incite/2021/01/06/0acfc778-5035-11eb-bda4-615aaefd0555_story.html
Runciman, D. (2018). How democracy ends. Basic Books.
Saez, E. (2016). Striking it richer: The evolution of top incomes in the United States (updated
with 2015 estimates). https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2015.pdf
Sahlberg, P. (2012, June 29). How GERM is infecting schools around the world. The Washington
Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-germ-is-infecting-
schools-around-the-world/2012/06/29/gJQAVELZAW_blog.html
Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Allyn and Bacon.
Schafft, K. A., & Biddle, C. (2013). Place and purpose in public education: School district
mission statements and educational (dis)embeddedness. American Journal of Education,
120(1), 55–76.
Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. H., & Verba, S. (2020). Unequal and unrepresented: Political
inequality and the people’s voice in the new gilded age. Princeton University Press.
Schultz, B. D. (2017). Teaching in the cracks: Opening and opportunities for student-centered,
action-focused curriculum. Teachers College Press.
Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Neoliberalism, democracy, and the question of whose knowledge to teach.
Teacher Education and Practice, 30(2), 307–309.
Sleeter, C. E., & Banks, J. (2007). Facing accountability in education: Democracy and equity
at risk. Teachers College Press.
60 Teachers College Record 124(3)
Stemler, S. E., & Bebell, D. (2012). The school mission statement: Values, goals, and identities
in American education. Routledge.
Stiglitz, J. (2015). The great divide: Unequal societies and what we can do about them. W.W.
Norton & Company.
Stitzlein, S. M. (2013). Teaching for dissent: Citizenship education and political activism.
Routledge.
Stitzlein, S. M. (2017). American public education and the responsibility of its citizens:
Supporting democracy in the age of accountability. Oxford University Press.
Strauss, V. (2012, July 9). Texas GOP rejects “critical thinking” skills. Really. The Washington
Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-
thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html
Trump, D. J. (2021). Donald Trump speech “Save America” rally transcript January 6. http://
www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-janu-
ary-6/
UCLA Center X. (2020). About Center X. https://centerx.gseis.ucla.edu/about/
United Nations. (2016). Racism, xenophobia increasing globally, experts tell Third Committee,
amid calls for laws to combat hate speech, concerns over freedom of expression. http://
www.un.org/press/en/2016/gashc4182.doc.htm
Vara-Orta, F. (2018). Hate in schools. Editorial Projects in Education.
Vidal, X. M. (2018). Immigration politics in the 2016 election. Political Science and Politics,
51(2), 304–308.
Waitzkin, H. (2018). Health care under the knife: Moving beyond capitalism for our health.
Monthly Review Press.
Westheimer, J. (2007). Pledging allegiance: The politics of teaching about patriotism in
America’s classrooms. Teachers College Press.
Westheimer, J. (2015). What kind of citizen: Educating our children for the common good.
Teachers College Press.
Wike, R., Simmons, K., Stokes, B., & Fetterolf, J. (2017). Globally, broad support for repre-
sentative and direct democracy: But many also endorse nondemocratic alternatives. Pew
Research Center.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies
stronger. Bloomsbury Press.
World Values Survey. (2020). World Values Survey Wave 7. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.
org/WVSDocumentationWV7.jsp
Zeichner, K. M. (2018). The struggle for the soul of teacher education. Routledge.
Author Biography
Joel Westheimer, PhD, is University Research Chair in Democracy and Education at the
University of Ottawa and an education columnist for the Canadian Broadcasting Company
(CBC) . In addition to the role of schools in democratic societies, he studies and writes about
school reform movements, teacher education, youth activism, and the politics of education and
education research. His award-winning books include What Kind of Citizen?, Pledging
Allegiance, and Among Schoolteachers. He is co-director, with John Rogers (UCLA) of The
Inequality Project and currently serves on the Royal Society of Canada’s Children and Schools
COVID-19 Task Force. More information on research, publications, and speaking can be found
at joelwestheimer.org; Twitter: @joelwestheimer.
