January 27, 2026
From Civic Education to Social Activation:
How Modern Schooling Reframes the Purpose of Education
Introduction
In recent years, Minnesota—like many states—has seen a noticeable increase in student-led and youth-centered activism. This has prompted a reasonable question from parents and community members: Is this rise in activism merely a coincidence, or is it connected to how students are now being educated?
When examined closely, modern education frameworks suggest the shift is not accidental. Instead, it reflects a broader change in the purpose of public education—from transmitting knowledge and civic understanding to shaping beliefs, identity, and behavior—ultimately forming students for social and political action. This change represents a significant departure from the philosophy of education held by the founders of the American republic.
Activism as a Stated Goal in Modern Education Theory
In the United States, contemporary education literature increasingly describes schooling as a tool for social transformation rather than neutral instruction. Influential theorists argue that education should prepare students to challenge and change existing social structures.
One of the most influential figures in this tradition is Paulo Freire, whose book Pedagogy of the Oppressed is widely taught in schools of education. Freire rejected education as the transmission of knowledge and instead described it as a process of developing “critical consciousness”—a way of thinking that moves students toward political action against perceived systems of oppression. In his framework, education progresses from awareness to action.
Freire’s ideas draw directly from the earlier Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who believed that for a Marxist revolution to succeed, they must control cultural institutions, especially the media and education. — Gramsci believed that lasting social change requires changing the way people think and speak. He is called the father of Cultural Marxism.
Together, these ideas formed the foundation of critical pedagogy, an educational philosophy that treats schooling as a tool for shaping beliefs, identity, and social behavior in service of broader social change. What began as theory is now embedded in many public-school frameworks and programs, influencing instruction, discipline, and assessment—shaping not only what students learn, but who they are expected to become. Within this framework, student activism is not an accidental outcome but is often viewed as proof that education has successfully formed students’ perspectives and sense of moral responsibility.
Educational Delivery Systems That Support This Goal
In the classrooms, this formative approach is carried out through a set of widely used educational frameworks. While districts may use different names or branding, these systems are common across the United States and appear in many public schools under familiar terms.
- Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) shapes students’ internal emotional and moral orientation.
“SEL helps young people and adults develop the skills and mindsets needed to actively contribute to a more just, inclusive, and equitable society.”
— CASEL, Transformative SEL Framework
- Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) provides identity-based content related to sex, gender, autonomy, relationships, and social norms.
“Comprehensive sexuality education seeks to equip young people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values to challenge social norms related to gender, power, and identity.”
— SIECUS, Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education
- Restorative Practices (RP) reframe discipline away from individual responsibility toward collective harm, power analysis, and social repair.
“Restorative practices are intended to transform school culture, address power imbalances, and promote social responsibility.”
— International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP)
Together, these approaches function as an integrated model. Education scholars frequently describe this alignment as essential to producing socially engaged students who view activism as a moral responsibility.
When schools consistently emphasize identity, systemic injustice, and collective responsibility, increased activism becomes a predictable outcome.
Founding-Era Views of Education in the United States
These modern frameworks centered on forming student’s beliefs and values differs sharply from the philosophy held by America’s founders.
Founding-era thinkers strongly supported education, but they understood its purpose in instructional and academic terms. Schools existed to teach foundational knowledge—reading, writing, mathematics, history, science, and civics—so that citizens could develop judgment, reason independently, and participate responsibly in self-government.
Thomas Jefferson argued that education was necessary so citizens could read, reason, and guard against tyranny—not so the state could shape their beliefs. James Madison warned that concentrated power over opinion was as dangerous as power over force.
For the founders:
- Education emphasized academic mastery and intellectual development, not identity formation
- Moral and religious formation belonged primarily to families and churches
- Civic education taught how government works, not what political outcomes to pursue
- The authority of the state over belief and conscience was deliberately limited
They deliberately avoided granting the state authority to form citizens’ inner beliefs, recognizing that such power was characteristic of authoritarian and collectivist systems.
A Fundamental Philosophical Divide
The contrast between these two models is clear.
- Founding-era, instruction-based education sought to prepare free individuals capable of self-governance through academic knowledge, civic literacy, and independent reasoning.
- Modern, formation-based education increasingly seeks to produce socially engaged actors aligned with a particular vision of justice and social change.
A note to consider: When schools focus more on shaping students’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, academics can become less of a priority. Because time and resources are limited, putting more attention on non-academic skills can mean less focus on core subjects like reading, math, and science. With academic performance declining nationwide, it’s fair to wonder whether a school system that treats academics as just one goal among many—rather than the main purpose of schooling—may be contributing to lower student achievement over time.
This does not require assuming bad intentions. Many educators sincerely believe that forming students for activism will improve society. But the philosophical alignment is unmistakable: education systems that intentionally shape identity, worldview, and civic behavior resemble collectivist and Marxist-derived models, not the classical liberal framework of a constitutional republic.
Conclusion
The rise in student activism is not accidental. It reflects a shift in schooling that has already occurred—from instruction toward forming how students understand identity, morality, power, and justice, often with activism treated as a measure of success.
Because this shift is already underway, the question for parents and policymakers is no longer theoretical. Public schools are forming students around particular social and moral frameworks, often without clear public discussion. Many parents did not realize when this change happened—and never agreed to it.
Education has changed. Parents deserve to understand how—and why—and to have a meaningful voice in deciding what comes next.
*This article was written with AI-based assistance for research, source verification, and editorial tools.