Culturally Divisive Conflict Costly to School Districts Across the United States

Culturally divisive conflicts cost school districts across the United States a collective $3.2 billion annually, according to a national survey of superintendents conducted by researchers John Rogers, Rachel White, Robert Shand, and Joseph Kahne, with results published in a recent issue of the Peabody Journal of Education (2026, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp.6–19). The analysis of culturally divisive conflicts centers on teaching about issues of race and racism, rights and protections for LGTBQ+ students, and student access to a full range of books.

Direct costs accrued due to culturally divisive conflicts include enhanced security measures, media and community outreach, school board and government relations, and staff turnover. These costs were borne disproportionately by the degree of conflict experienced by a district, ranging from $25 per pupil for low-conflict districts to $80 per pupil for high-conflict districts. 

These estimates do not account for the indirect costs, namely staff time redirected from otherwise productive tasks to manage conflicts instead. Moreover, superintendents bear a significant burden in weathering culturally divisive conflicts: 30% of superintendents feared for their own or their family’s personal safety during the 2023–2024 school year, half experienced at least once instance of harassment, and 10% received death threats or experienced property vandalism. 

The authors conclude that culturally divisive conflicts are costly and highly disruptive of efforts to prepare the next generation for informed and effective engagement in our constitutional democracy. While they acknowledge that debates about how and what our children are taught in our diverse, politically heterogeneous country are inevitable, the authors insist that these conflicts be resolved civilly through established channels of local governance, most prominently school boards. Parents, members of the public, and school board members themselves should practice pluralism and model civic friendship. And we must invest in the capacity of educators, school leaders, and board members to manage culturally divisive conflicts as part of collegiate training and their ongoing professional development.

 Open Classrooms Key to Students’ Civic Development

Penn State Education Policy Studies scholar Ari Kim finds that open classroom climates can help students surmount social inequalities as they develop civic knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in her January 2026 research article Civic Capital in Uneven and Uncertain Times. The author defines open climates as classrooms where political discussions are encouraged, pluralistic perspectives presented, and respectful debates about current public issues are commonplace.

Kim’s study draws from an international sample of 8th grade students across 15 countries. The author finds that while students bring varying levels of civic capital into schools depending upon their family and socioeconomic backgrounds, classroom interventions can serve as a great equalizer, yielding positive growth in civic knowledge, efficacy, and participation. Moreover, while civic knowledge and efficacy declined over the course of the study, civic participation rose, a product of lowered barriers to entry via technology and changing sociopolitical contexts.

This study has significant implications for practice and policy:

• Given the importance of open classrooms, educators’ professional learning should emphasize strategies for structured engagement with controversial issues and centering student voice.
• As civic engagement assumes increasingly digital forms, information literacy is a core component of students’ civic development.
• Post-pandemic, we must attend to students’ civic knowledge and build a sense of belonging and commitment to the common good. Pedagogical strategies like those detailed above and throughout the Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy should become the new norm.

AI Corner

The 2026 AI Index Report from the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) highlights a critical gap in civic readiness. While four out of five U.S. students now use generative AI for their schoolwork, only half of middle and high schools have formal AI policies in place. This disparity underscores the urgent need for robust AI literacy in K–12 education. To prepare the next generation for a landscape in which AI is no longer a niche technology, but a fundamental part of the workforce and public discourse, we must move beyond incidental use and toward intentional instruction. By integrating AI literacy into our schools, we empower students to not only navigate these tools effectively but also to understand the ethical implications and societal impacts of the technology shaping their future.

Key Takeaways from the education section of the report:

• The Usage Gap: 80% of students are using AI for research and brainstorming, yet only 6% of teachers report having clear guidance or policies from their districts.
• Global Momentum: National mandates for AI education are rising globally, with countries like China and the United Arab Emirates implementing formal curricula for the 2025–26 school year to ensure national competitiveness.
• Literacy vs. Engineering: There is a global trend of “AI literacy” (understanding and using AI) growing faster than technical “AI engineering” skills, signaling that AI is becoming a universal civic skill rather than just a technical one.

Ultimately, fostering a deep understanding of AI is not just a technical requirement, but a civic necessity, ensuring that students, educators, future voters, and community members can critically evaluate information and participate meaningfully in an increasingly digital democracy.

We were pleased to showcase the following research initiatives and ideas at this year’s Civic Learning Week National Forum: 

• AI Literacy for Responsible Use and Civic Engagement (MIT Media Lab/MIT RAISE)
• Civic Profile (Hoover Institution and the Center for Revitalizing American Institutions)
• Reimagining Assessment to Promote Civic Learning and Engagement (National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment)
• Shifting Civics Learning Opportunities in U.S. Public Schools (RAND)
• Two-Generation Civic Learning: Evidence and Promise (NYU Metro Center)

Thank you to our colleagues for sharing important and thought-provoking work with the civic learning community!

Forty-seven percent of young voters (ages 18–29) cast ballots in 2024, down three points from 2020, but eclipsing 2016 turnout (39%). This is the top takeaway from our partners at the Center for Information Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) based on their 2025 analyses of the 2024 Presidential Election and 2025 contests in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City.

Other key findings include:

• Persistent gender and racial/ethnic gaps in youth voting, with 58% of White women voting in 2024 compared to 25% of Black men. Young voters of color say they disproportionately lack information about the voting process.
• Huge swings in youth turnout by state, from a high of 62% in Minnesota to the low of 33% in Arkansas. Turnout tends to correlate with the state’s political competitiveness.
•  A mere 16% of young voters believe democracy is working for them, a figure that, if left unaddressed, can drive even more potential voters to the sidelines.

This fall’s midterm elections present another teachable moment for the civic learning movement. CIRCLE found that fewer than half of youth surveyed (48%) felt a sense of belonging—a critical factor in students’ civic development—in school. However, two-thirds of those who vote in every national election reported a sense of belonging, as did 58% who vote in local elections or participate in local government.

Let’s commit to teaching students about voting processes and the candidates and issues on the ballot this fall, but also attend to their whole being, supporting schools in practicing the tenets of our constitutional democracy daily.