Social Justice Education and Adolescents’ Critical Consciousness Development

• In Event: Discussing Controversial Issues in Class: Classroom Climate, Critical Consciousness, and Civic Competence

Abstract

Background
Adolescents’ critical consciousness – reflection on systemic inequalities, agency, and action to challenge inequalities – is important for creating a more just and equitable society. Schools vary in whether and how they provide critical consciousness-raising opportunities (Seider & Graves, 2020). Certain courses (e.g., ethnic studies), practices (e.g., sociopolitical discussions) and programming (e.g., opportunities for action) predict higher critical reflection, agency, and action among high school students (Hipolito Delgado et al., 2022; Pinedo et al., 2025; Schwarzenthal et al., 2022). More research is needed on which classroom contexts and content foster students’ critical consciousness (Heberle et al., 2020), especially in the current U.S. political climate, where diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education is under attack (Trump, 2025). Anti-critical race theory (CRT) and anti-DEI policies in schools and across states may hamper critical consciousness development by restricting access to information about social inequalities or spark critical consciousness as youth challenge these policies.

Purpose
Our study examines different facets of social justice education in relation to adolescents’ critical consciousness concurrently and over one year. We examine youth-reported social justice socialization from teachers, social justice curriculum content, and educational censorship and documented state-wide anti-CRT policies and legislation. We hypothesized that more social justice socialization and curriculum content would predict increased critical consciousness and explored, with competing hypotheses, whether educational censorship raises or lowers critical consciousness.

Methods
Data come from 681 high-school students (ages 13-20, M = 16.8) recruited nationally via established social media methods who participated in waves 2 and 3 of a three-year longitudinal study. Youth were 16% Black, 16% Latine, 24% white, 18% Asian, and 25% multiracial; and were 55% cisgender female, 23% cisgender male; 22% transgender or nonbinary; and 53% LGBTQ+. Critical reflection was measured with five scales, agency with four scales, and critical action with two scales. All measures were reliable (ɑ = .75-.93; see Table 1).

Results
Regression models included social justice education indicators at waves 2 and 3 predicting wave 3 critical consciousness constructs, controlling for wave 2 critical consciousness and demographics (see Tables 2 & 3). Social justice socialization concurrently, positively predicted all critical consciousness indicators, except for structural attributions for social problems. Social justice curriculum content at wave 3 predicted more frequent high-risk critical actions and more structural attributions for social problems, but lower race consciousness. Educational censorship in school concurrently predicted more frequent low-risk and high-risk critical actions and greater competence to engage in social change. Living in a state with an anti-CRT measure was related to more frequent low-risk actions.

Discussion
Results suggested a concurrent, but not longitudinal, role of social justice education in supporting certain aspects of critical consciousness, suggesting that students’ current educational environment may matter most for shaping their critical reflection, agency, and action. Learning about a range of different social injustices did not always positively relate to critical consciousness indicators, highlighting complexities in linking social justice education and critical consciousness. Findings tentatively suggest that students may be responding to anti-CRT policies and censorship by engaging in critical action.

Authors

• Laura Wray-Lake, University of Rochester

• Elan Hope, North Carolina State University

• Christopher Wegemer, University of California - Los Angeles

• Allison Weber, Policy Research Associates

• Emily Greytak, ACLU