While we include a full menu of policy recommendations for a variety of stakeholders on page 41, we first spotlight three specific ways of bringing the above proven practices into broader use in every classroom.

Promoting Civic Learning: Assessment

This report, consistent with current research, endorses a broad version of civic learning that encompasses the six proven practices as inputs and three main categories of outcomes: knowledge, skills, dispositions. Existing assessments required of students and schools are usually much narrower and are largely limited to pencil–and–paper tests of civic knowledge alone.

Proponents of civic learning face a trade–off in the realm of testing. If a broad version of civic learning is not included in assessment systems, the six proven practices can easily be forgotten or neglected—as they too often are. As was noted earlier in this report, only 16 states require meaningful assessment in the social studies, and that number has declined in the past five years as states eliminated civics assessments.( 113) The total absence of civic content from the Title I assessment provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act relegates civic learning to a secondary status and pushes it out of many curricula especially those serving the underprivileged students who most need civic learning and empowerment.

On the other hand, new high–stakes tests in civics are unlikely the solution, partly because civic outcomes are difficult to measure, and partly because students and schools already face many (sometime unhelpful) mandatory evaluations. Available evidence suggests that existing state testing and assessment policies do not boost students' civics skills or knowledge.( 114) In an age in which assessment is among the dominant tropes in education policy discourse, this finding should lead not to abandonment of civic learning assessments, but to new research into which assessment regimes would be most effective and accompanying reforms to current testing regimes.

The central component of effective standards should be a focus on civic outcomes—knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The majority of state civics standards place
an emphasis on the rote memorization of a laundry list of historical facts and dates rather than a holistic view of civic engagement encompassing all three desired outputs.

There is no panacea, and different assessment mechanisms may be appropriate in different settings; the ideal combination of assessments may differ for teachers, local school boards, state education policymakers, and the federal government.
The following page presents a table outlining the advantages and disadvantages of four different types of civic learning assessments. The first two, multiple–choice tests and short–answer/essay tests , are at present the most common types of civic learning assessments. The other two, performance tests and portfolio assessments, are newer and less common. Research shows, however, that these sorts of “alternative assessments” hold benefits for students that more traditional assessments do not.( 115)

Closely related to the debate over assessments is another question: What is the optimal use of assessments? Once civic opportunities or outcomes are measured, the results can be used to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in individual students or student populations guide educators; help evaluate the effects of programs and curricula; identify and reward success; allocate resources where
the need is greatest; sanction administrators, educators, or students who perform poorly; or grade students and determine their eligibility for promotion or graduation. Each of these purposes presents a range of advantages and disadvantages. Having considered the issue closely, we present recommendations on how policymakers should treat civic learning assessments in the final section of this report (page 41).