In the 2020 presidential election, barely half of 18- to 24-year-olds voted, compared to 76 percent of those in the 65–74 age group. While there are many reasons for lower turnout among youth (e.g., out-of-state college attendance, work conflicts, registration issues), a new working paper by Columbia University’s Kirsten Slungaard Mumma explores the role of high schools in shaping civic engagement.
The study uses data from Indiana public schools, focusing on students who entered ninth grade between 2007–08 and 2015–16 (456,700 students across 335 schools). The author merged education records with Indiana birth records and national voting files to link students to both their parents’ and their own voting histories.
Mumma used a value-added framework to estimate “school civic effects” (the effect that high schools have on the probability of voting). To predict student voting outcomes, her model controlled for demographics, eighth-grade test scores, prior attendance and behavior, parental voting behavior, and county characteristics. The gap between predicted and actual outcomes was then averaged for each school’s graduating class (the school-cohort level) to capture the school’s unique contribution to civic engagement. Descriptive evidence shows wide variation in civic engagement across schools (about a 19 percentage point gap by age 22) and school demographics, prior academic performance, and parental voting are strong predictors of a student’s adult voting behavior.
The study also examines the extent to which three non-civic school factors predict adult voting: (1) test score value-added on tenth-grade English and algebra exams; (2) non-cognitive skills, summarized in an index of ninth-grade attendance, suspensions, expulsions, course pass rates, and on-time promotion; and (3) college-going behavior, measured by SAT/ACT participation within four years of entering high school (though it’s worth noting that Indiana requires all juniors to take the SAT, which may limit its usefulness as an indicator of college intent).
Results suggest that non-civic factors raise likelihood of voting but less than civic effects themselves. For example, a one standard deviation increase in school civic effects corresponds to a 1.6 percentage point increase in the probability of voting by age 22, and 1.4 percentage points for participation in the first general election. This means that, even after controlling for multiple measures, the high school one attends is associated with one’s likelihood of voting. By contrast, gains in test scores or college exam participation are associated with only a 0.6 percentage point increase in voting, while non-cognitive effects are not significantly related to adult voting.
School and county characteristics also influence civic effects to an extent. Charter schools appear to have stronger civic effects though this advantage disappears once other factors are controlled for. School size shows a negative relationship with civic effects, meaning that larger schools tend to have smaller impacts on likelihood of voting. Schools in politically competitive and less Republican counties also tend to generate larger civic effects. Civic norms are especially influential. Parental voting behavior, which Mumma interprets as a measure of peer civic norms, is strongly associated with civic outcomes: A single standard deviation increase in average maternal voting is associated with a 1.7 standard deviation increase in school civic effects.
Beyond school and county characteristics, the study also considers whether the content of what schools offer, through coursework and extracurriculars, affect school civic effects. Participation and scores in AP U.S. History and AP Government are positively related to civic effects, but civics-related extracurriculars (e.g., debate, We The People, and mock trial) show little consistent association once other school characteristics are controlled for. The number of civics-related extracurricular activities is not significantly related to civic effects; in other words, simply offering civics-related extracurriculars does not guarantee stronger voting outcomes.
While some findings reinforce findings from previous research—such as the influence of schools and parents on children’s civic engagement—the study shows that high schools themselves leave a measurable imprint on whether young people vote.
The study also opens the door for future research on how teachers, staff, and school practices may foster a climate that encourages lasting civic participation. Future research might gauge the effects of high schools on raising other types of civic engagement, such as volunteering for a political campaign or other forms of activism, especially given the rise of student-led protests over the last half century.
High schools matter for long-term civic outcomes—not just through test scores or college readiness, but also through their contributions to civic participation. Strengthening school practices and civic-focused initiatives in schools that lag in both academic and civic effects could help prepare the next generation not only to succeed in education and work, but also to participate more fully in democracy.
SOURCE: Kirsten Slungaard Mumma, “High School Effects on Civic Engagement,” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (September 2025).
