Session Information
23 SES 01 C, Focusing on Citizenship
Paper Session
Contribution
Citizenship education is a concept encountered in many debates and publications. This concept though is often very differently addressed in politics, in conversations in schools, in public opinion and among scholars. Debates on citizenship education can be very lively, as is the case in the Netherlands. In this paper we will analyze several themes that play a role in these debates and link them with research into citizenship education. The first part examines current reflection on citizenship and citizenship education. Special attention will be given to differences in defining the concepts of citizenship and citizenship education, the introduction of other cultures, and the school as a practice ground. The second part analyses the developing of citizenship education and its possibilities at two policy levels: government, and schools.
The concept of citizenship itself is continuously broadened and deepened. It is broadened in the sense that citizenship is no longer limited to the Netherlands, but also relates to European citizenship and even global citizenship. There is a deepening of the concept, because citizenship no longer exclusively relates to the political level, but also extends to the social and the cultural levels and even to the interpersonal level – how people live together. (Oser & Veugelers, 2008). In Dutch politics the emphasis in citizenship education is upon active participation and social integration. In the social sciences, the political dynamics are usually described with the concept of democracy (Parker, 2004; Veugelers, 2007). Following Dewey, democracy is seen as a “way of life”: it is a way of living together, of bridging differences of opinion and of protecting minorities.
Three themes that are central in the Dutch discourse about citizenship education:
Types of citizenship. In many empirical studies we found three types of citizenship: adaptive, individualizing and critical democratic citizenship (Veugelers, 2007; Leenders, Veugelers, & De Kat, 2008a, 2008b). The adaptive type combines discipline en social involvement, the individualizing type combines autonomy and social involvement, and the critical democratic type autonomy and social involvement.
To get familiar with other cultures. Bridging (Putnam, 2000) with other culturesis seen as an important aspect of citizenship education. Schuitema and Veugelers (in press) studied several projects in which students from different social and ethnic groups meet each other. The study shows that effects are hard to prove, but that it is important that joint activities are undertaken during the meetings and that there is interaction at the individual level.
The school as a practice ground. Actively participating in democratic practices in the school should provide students with valuable learning experiences. This is hardly the case. Participation as such is not sufficient; it needs to be participation in democratic relations and an orientation on justice, dialogue and social action (Veugelers, 2009).
How does relate these finding with educational policy? In the second part of the paper an analysis will be made of citizenship education at the various levels of the educational policy system and of the level of the school..
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bron, J., Veugelers, W., & Vliet, E. de (2009). Leerplanverkenning actief burgerschap (Curriculum exploration active citizenship). Enschede: SLO. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley. D. (2009). The Fourth way. Thoasand Oaks: Corwin Press. Goodson, I.F. (2005). Learning, Curriculum and Life Politica. London: Routledge. Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Towards for a framework for critical citizenship education. The Curriculum Journal, 21, 1, 77-96. Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & Kat, E. de (2008a). Teachers’ views on citizenship in secondary education in the Netherlands. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 2, 155-170. Leenders, H.., Veugelers, W., & Kat, E. de (2008b). In Oser, F.K. & Veugelers, W. (Eds.), Getting involved. Citizenship education and sources of moral values. (57-74). Rotterdam/Taipeh/Boston: SensePublishers. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge. Parker, W. (2004). Teaching democracy. New York: Teachers College Press. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. Schuitema, J., & Veugelers, W. (in press). Multicultural contacts in Education. Educational Studies. Spring, J. (2004). How educational ideologies are shaping global society. Mahwah NJ : LEA. Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: empowering humanity and democracy in Dutch education. Compare, 37, 1, 105-119. Veugelers, W. (2008). Youngsters in transformative and reproductive processes of moral and citizenship education. In Tirri, K. (Ed.), Moral sensibilities in urban education (79-91). Rotterdam/Taipeh/Boston: SensePublishers. Veugelers, W. (2009). Active student participation and citizenship education. Educational Practice and Theory, 31, 2, 55-70. Veugelers, W. (in press). The moral and the political in global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 2. Veugelers, W. (Eds.) (2001). Education and Humanism. Rotterdam/Taipeh/Boston: SensePublishers Westheimer, J. (2008). On the relationship between political and moral engagement. In Oser, F. & Veugelers, W. (Eds. ), (2008). Getting involved. Global citizenship development and sources of moral values (17-30). Rotterdam/Taipeh/Boston: SensePublishers.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.