Why even casting your ballot in school elections can have a lasting effect on youth political engagement
Dr Avril Keating
Director, Centre for Global Youth, UCL Institute of Education
Dr Avril Keating is a Senior Lecturer in Comparative Social Science at the UCL Institute of Education's Department of Education, Practice and Society, Director of the Centre for Global Youth, and a Contributing Academic to the ESRC Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies (LLAKES).
Avril's research focuses on the evolution of civic attitudes and agency during youth, and she is involved in a range of projects that explore this theme from a comparative, inter-disciplinary and mixed-method perspective.
Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox
We will never share your data with any third-parties.
Share this and support our work
The youth vote was an important theme in the run up to the 2015 general election, and it was heartening to see so many different organisations try to reach out to young voters. Whether it was Bite the Ballot or Channel 4’s E4, all worked to try to ensure young people got their say on May 7th.
These campaigns largely focus on young people who are over the age of 18 and eligible to vote in this election. But schools and teachers can play an important role even before their students reach the age of majority. In addition to formal Citizenship classes, schools also provide activities that give students a chance to learn about democracy through ‘hands-on’ experience. Some of the most popular (and effective) activities in this vein are school councils, debating teams, and mock elections, which the Hansard Society has been supporting for 50 years.
Analysis of the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study in England (CELS) shows that hands-on activities like these can have a positive impact on young people’s attitudes towards politics. Moreover, these benefits are not temporary. We found that students who participated in mock elections, debating teams and/ or school councils were more likely to have positive attitudes towards political participation even after they had left school. And it’s not just voting that these activities encourage; our participants were also more likely to report that they had taken part in non-electoral types of participation, such as boycotting products, contacting politicians, and using social media for political purposes. These positive benefits were found even after we controlled for other factors that are known to boost political participation among adults (such as high levels of education and high socio-economic status). In other words, mock elections and school councils don’t just benefit middle class students or young people who are already politically engaged.
There are several reasons why activities like these provide such an important (and lasting) impression on youth attitudes. For one, these activities allow young people to acquire practical as well as cognitive skills. For example, mock elections give students an opportunity to participate in (mock) election campaigns and to run as candidates. In the process, students practice politically-relevant skills such as public speaking; formulating and communicating opinions about political issues; negotiating with others; and learning to work in groups.
Even simply filling in the mock ballot paper can be beneficial, as it not only allows students to become familiar with how to cast their vote, but it can get young people into the habit of participation. Many political scientists believe that voting is a habit and that people are more likely to vote if they have done so in the past. Young people typically do not get a chance to form this habit until after the age of 18, but mock elections can help to start the habit-formation process.
Schools also send an important message to young people when they give them opportunities to practice democracy at school. In particular, these activities help to reinforce the social norm that political participation is worthwhile. Exposing young people to this idea while they are at secondary school is particularly important. Adolescence is a formative period and the norms, identities and habits that are formed during this period persist into adulthood and help to shape political participation in later life.
More importantly, by offering these activities schools are also signalling that young people’s opinions matter. This can help young people to feel more included, and boost their confidence and sense of efficacy. Young people are more likely to take part if they feel that their voice will be heard, and that their efforts will make a difference.
Of course, simply holding mock elections in schools will not address all of the challenges surrounding youth political engagement. If only it were that easy. Families, political parties, NGOs and the media must also play their role in engaging young people with politics. And of course schools need to be given adequate support and resources in order to play their part. Politicians regularly pronounce their support for citizenship education, but if any type of citizenship education is to be effective, policy announcements in this vein must be backed-up with sustained political commitment, practical support for schools, and trained teachers. Without these vital resources, it will be difficult to live up to the potential that different types of citizenship education can have and give youth political engagement the boost it still clearly needs.
This post drew on a then-forthcoming paper in the Hansard Society's journal 'Parliamentary Affairs', since published as Avril Keating and Jan Germen Janmaat, ‘Education Through Citizenship at School: Do School Activities Have a Lasting Impact on Youth Political Engagement?', Parliamentary Affairs, Volume 69, Issue 2, April 2016, pp 409-429
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
