This is a recording of the plenary session entitled Embracing Difficult Conversations: The Intersection of Ethics and Civics Education at the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO) conference in June.

The panelists were: Sarah Stitzlein, University of Cincinnati; Winston C. Thompson, the Casto Professor at The Ohio State University; Jana Mohr Lone, PLATO; Allison Cohen, a teacher at Langley High School in McLean, VA; and me. Debi Talukdar moderated.

Sarah Stitzlein reported on conversations with conservative critics of controversial issues in schools. She suggested some responses to their concerns: Ground discussions in American principles, such as the tension between equality and liberty. Use historical rather than current examples. Delay the most contested discussions until students are older. Let students lead. And emphasize the purpose of living well together, finding common ground while respecting differences.

Winston Thompson discussed the common phenomenon of individuals being given too much or too little credibility or being misunderstood because of their perceived identity. (For instance, an immigrant from a given country could be treated as if her view of that country was definitive or else discounted on the assumption that she must be biased.) The practical steps that Winston recommended included setting norms for addressing identities, allowing people to opt out of “representing” a group, taking responsibility for imbalances in credibility, and teaching about such challenges as part of civics education.

Janna Mohr Lone described listening as an ethical orientation, not just a skill; it means giving full attention to another person. It requires receptivity, curiosity, and open-heartedeness. Among her practical tips: Allow long pauses so quieter voices emerge. Avoid the “ping-pong” when the teacher answers each student, and instead encourage students to respond o each other.

Alison Cohen spoke from extensive experience as a classroom teacher. She noted that reasons and arguments rarely change minds; fear and anger often underlie our positions. Instead of asking students what they’re angry about, she often asks “What are you concerned about?”—a question that helps uncover core values. She acknowledges students’ legitimate concerns without insincerely agreeing with them. She shifts discussions toward shared philosophical questions, often linked to Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity). Her background in ethics and political philosophy allows her to frame these concerns productively without formally teaching philosophy. She encourages listening for understanding first, rather than searching for flaws to attack, and helps clarify students’ points to reduce misunderstanding and fear of speaking.

Thanks to my co-panelists, it was a rich and insightful conversation with much relevance for practice.

Educating for American Democracy sent the following message yesterday:

We write with the good news that the work of EAD very much continues, even in these rapidly changing times.

As of June 1, the Educating for American Democracy Consortium will transition from being housed at iCivics to the Adams Presidential Center, based in Quincy, MA. The Adams Presidential Center works to share the history of a great American family, to promote their ideals of citizenship and selfless public service, and to inspire future generations to serve their communities and our nation. Hosting the EAD Consortium aligns with the Adams Presidential Center’s goal to foster lifelong civic learning.

EAD will continue to be guided by a Steering Committee, currently chaired by Peter Levine of Tufts University. Adams Presidential Center President, Kurt Graham has joined the Steering Committee. EAD is also proud to recognize Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello as a founding partner in the work. Monticello’s President Jane Kamensky also continues to serve on the EAD Steering Committee.

This move to APC comes after six years that iCivics has hosted EAD. We offer our great appreciation to iCivics for playing that role and for the organization’s partnership in creating and stewarding EAD. Louise Dube, CEO of iCivics, will continue to serve on the Steering Committee and fully supports the transition to APC. The Steering Committee’s members unanimously agreed that the transition is important for EAD to continue to thrive. The work will benefit from more focused attention and resources independent of any one provider in the civic education field.

Also, thanks to private philanthropy, the EAD Consortium is now able to search for an Executive Director, and the process is underway. In the meanwhile, questions about EAD can be directed to the EAD Consortium Steering Committee at EAD@adamspc.org.

These are difficult times for all civic educators in and beyond the classroom. Across this great country, countless teachers and civic leaders continue to bring the nation’s K–12 students and its lifelong learners rich lessons in the pluralistic narratives of American history and in the reflective patriotism needed for informed, engaged, and responsible citizenship. We are so proud of the work that you are all doing, and we look forward to celebrating it in March 2026 in Philadelphia at the National Forum of Civic Learning Week, co-hosted by iCivics and the Democratic Knowledge Project. Please save March 9–10, 2026, to join us in the nation’s birthplace.

With appreciation, 

Peter Levine, on behalf of the EAD Steering Committee

We are hosting the biannual PLATO conference this June 27-28 at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life. PLATO is mostly devoted to teaching philosophy in K12 schools.

Philosophy is not a priority in the USA, unlike in many European countries where it is taught (by that name) to large numbers of students in standardized or even mandatory courses. Nevertheless, the PLATO network is robust, attracting many educators (including some from overseas) who incorporate ethics and other aspects of philosophy in their courses and in extracurricular programs, such as ethics bowls.

From my point of view, philosophy is an aspect of civic education, which is my main professional cause.

The program is online and early registration is still open.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) periodically measures US students’ knowledge of civics with an instrument that looks like a test, although it has no stakes for the students or teachers. I have served on the design committee for that instrument for many years. I don’t love the framework, which is dominated by the formal structure of the federal government. However, the NAEP is a carefully constructed assessment with a large, representative sample, so the data are certainly worth using.

Because states adopt their own standards, course requirements, and other policies for civics, we would like to understand which state policies are most effective. In a recent paper, Steven Michael Carlo presents mean NAEP civics scores for each state for 2014-18. Importantly, he adjusts these scores for other factors that might affect the results, namely: individual students’ race/ethnicity and gender, whether their school is public or private, the party of the state’s governor and legislature, the state’s adult and student demographics, state per-pupil expenditures on k-12 schools, and the state’s percentage of private school students.*

Of course, one could add more variables of interest, including various state policies. However, Carlo has presented a plausible answer to the question: Which states do better at civics?

I thought it might be useful to display two columns of data from Carlo’s paper in the form of maps, because a visual display can help to suggest hypotheses. At a minimum, states like Louisiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Vermont that have low adjusted scores should investigate possible causes. States like Virginia, West Virginia, Washington and Florida that have high scores may provide models.

First, here are the adjusted NAEP civics scores from the most recent year (2018).

And here are changes in those scores from 2014-18.

Another research step would be to add state civics policies (such as course and test requirements) to the model.

*Carlo, Steven Michael. (2024). The State of State Civics Scores: An Application of Multilevel Regression with Post-Stratification using NAEP Test Scores. (EdWorkingPaper: 24-954). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: https://doi.org/10.26300/rn72-q717. See also: the new NAEP civics results; some surprising results from the 2010 NAEP Civics assessment; CIRCLE’s release on today’s Civics results etc.

The post civics test scores by state appeared first on Peter Levine.